Want this question answered?
The Salem witch trials were very scary, 'cause you didn't know what was to happen or if you could prove your innocence and be set free.
People, mainly the poor, were accusing others, mainly the rich, of witchcraft activities. There was little way the victims could prove their innocence and were hung for no reason. This is an example of scapegoating where one accuses another because, in colonial society, there was no outlet for emotions so they expressed their emotions through anger, vengeance and so on. The Salem Witch Trials is an example of this.
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
Basically, by killing them. One test they used to determine wether someone was a witch or not was to tie up the accused person to a chair, and throw them into a body of water. If the person was a witch, they would free themselves and escape death. If not (which was invariably the case), they would drown. Most tests were like this; if they're a witch, they'll survive this for sure death sentence; if not, they're not a witch and they'll die. EDIT: There was no way to prove an accused witch's innocence in Salem. Witch tests like those detailed above were considered barbaric and the evidence of witchcraft and nonexistance of such were used to decide by the judges to decide on a verdict.
Giles Corey, who was approximately 80.
The Salem witch trials were very scary, 'cause you didn't know what was to happen or if you could prove your innocence and be set free.
Please rephrase the question to understandability.
Actually the answer is false. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Exculpatory evidence at trial is evidence which helps to prove the innocence of the person on trial. The opposite word is inculpatory, evidence which proves his guilt.
In the US - defendants are not required to PROVE their innocence. However - if you are involved in a court action you would have already been indicted due to the existence of probable cause that you WERE involved in the offense. Then - instead of proving your innocence, you would have to present proof that you are NOT GUILTY.
prove your innocence. if you can't, run
Right-mind can prove his innocence by presenting evidence, such as alibis, witness testimonies, or documentation that supports his innocence. He can also provide any relevant information that may help establish his lack of involvement in the situation in question. Seeking legal assistance and cooperating with the authorities during the investigation process can also be crucial in proving his innocence.
Prove your innocence - either by use of an alibi or witnesses !
yes she does trying to prove her family's innocence
No. She maintained her innocence until she died in prison on May 10, 1692.
People, mainly the poor, were accusing others, mainly the rich, of witchcraft activities. There was little way the victims could prove their innocence and were hung for no reason. This is an example of scapegoating where one accuses another because, in colonial society, there was no outlet for emotions so they expressed their emotions through anger, vengeance and so on. The Salem Witch Trials is an example of this.
prove your innocence and make anything and everything to your side