Connecticut state Rep. Doug Dubitsky doesn’t consider in witches. He desires to make this very clear.
“There are many individuals nowadays who suppose there’s such a factor as witchcraft,” Dubitsky mentioned in a current cellphone interview. “I don’t occur to be one in all them.”
Dubitsky’s uncommon clarification was prompted by protection of his objections to a invoice at the moment earlier than the Connecticut state legislature — protection he says made him appear to be “a rube” who believed in witches — to exonerate Connecticut residents who had been convicted of crimes regarding witchcraft within the 1600s. Dubitsky mentioned he took situation with the imprecise wording of the invoice and wished extra details about the crimes “associated” to witchcraft and what precisely the legislature was going to exonerate them for.
The invoice is a part of a microtrend of late: Almost 400 years after their notorious witch trials, New England states have been introducing and passing laws to exonerate those that had been convicted. Final yr, via a price range modification, Massachusetts lastly exonerated Elizabeth Johnson Jr., the final individual convicted within the Salem witch trials who had not but had her title cleared. And a invoice is at the moment pending earlier than the New Hampshire legislature to posthumously exonerate Eunice “Goody” Cole, the one Granite Stater ever convicted of witchcraft.
However whereas acknowledging the injustices of the previous might look like an objectively noble job, Dubitsky isn’t the one individual with hesitations about these payments. Others have questioned whether or not this type of laws is one of the best use of lawmakers’ time at a second when dwelling, respiration girls nonetheless face actual threats.
Connecticut’s invoice was largely the product of a marketing campaign by a gaggle of historians and descendants of convicted witches looking for closure. These individuals, lots of whom testified in favor of the invoice throughout a public listening to, nonetheless really feel a way of injustice for his or her ancestors who had been wrongly convicted, in response to Jess Zaccagnino, a coverage counsel on the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, who testified in assist of the invoice.
“There’s a whole lot of households on the market that actually need closure,” Zaccagnino mentioned. “Despite the fact that this occurred again within the mid-1600s, that form of reconciliation is necessary, as a result of there are nonetheless households proper right here in Connecticut which are hurting from this.”
Legislators who sponsored the invoice have cited this as the principle motivation as effectively, however there are different explanation why such a laws is interesting. Connecticut state Sen. Saud Anwar, who co-sponsored the invoice, mentioned the principle motivation was to acknowledge the injustice of the state’s puritanical (actually) witch hunts. However he mentioned that this type of stance additionally communicates that the state helps girls at a time when girls’s rights face renewed threats. “It’s no secret that what occurred 300-plus years in the past was as a result of the ladies had been girls they usually had been being focused,” Anwar mentioned. “When males are in management … they use their means to try to take away the rights of girls. It was prevalent then. It stays prevalent now.”
Anwar identified that lots of the accused had been focused for being “impartial girls.” State Rep. Jane Garibay mentioned in a listening to that a few of the accused had been girls who merely dressed in another way or had been “too assertive” and that the invoice was “not about witchcraft. That is about girls’s rights and justice.” On this sense, the invoice just isn’t solely a symbolic gesture to proper the wrongs of the previous, but additionally a approach for the (largely) Democratic lawmakers supporting it to sign their feminist bona fides with out having to cross any precise new legal guidelines.
However there are those that query the worth of those sorts of symbolic gestures. Dubitsky mentioned he opposed the invoice not as a result of he thought perhaps the accused had been precise witches, however as a result of he thinks exoneration by the state legislature needs to be taken severely, and he wished the language to be clear and express.
“If it’s just a few flowery, good factor to try this has no substantive which means, eliminate it utterly,” Dubitsky mentioned. “We shouldn’t be doing payments like that. We must always do payments which have substance. We have now an excessive amount of work to do.”
Even Katherine Howe, an creator and historian of the witch trials who’s herself a descendant of two girls who had been convicted of witchcraft, puzzled whether or not this was probably the most significant option to assist girls, and even proper historic wrongs, in 2023. She mentioned exonerating these convicted of witchcraft was “nice” however “a whole lot of dangerous stuff occurred 300 years in the past.”
“I can consider one thing that’s truly worse that also has fairly massive results in up to date society — I’m speaking about slavery,” Howe mentioned. “It’s simple to return and say, ‘Have a look at this fallacious that we have now righted.’ And I feel it’s partly as a result of we don’t actually must reckon with the aftereffects of it anymore. That’s a pleasant, simple, feel-good factor to do. And but on the similar time, we simply misplaced Roe v. Wade — like, are we truly nervous about girls right now?”
In the course of the public hearings, a minimum of one Connecticut resident additionally spoke out in opposition to the invoice questioning why lawmakers had been centered on exonerating a small group of people that had been convicted centuries in the past when there are nonetheless people convicted of crimes associated to marijuana in a state profiting off the legalized sale of the drug.
Proponents of the invoice say it’s not a zero-sum sport and there’s no motive lawmakers can’t do all of it. There are legal guidelines and payments round overturning marijuana convictions in Connecticut, for instance. Ultimately, proponents and opponents might every rating a win. Anwar mentioned he’s “optimistic” that Connecticut’s invoice — which handed favorably out of the joint judicial committee — will cross, whereas New Hampshire’s is at the moment blocked in a Senate committee regardless of passing the Home. However atoning for each wrongdoing perpetrated by the state over the previous three or 4 centuries, whereas additionally defending modern-day residents, is a tall order, and may take greater than a bit magic to tug off.
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux contributed reporting.