Do you think that the woman convicted of being a witch in England in 1944 should be pardoned?

Question

Helen Duncan was convicted of witchcraft in England and sent to prison. It seems absurd that this happened in a civilised society less than seventy years ago.

What do you think?

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/helenduncan/

Answer 1

Was she not convicted of being a fraudulent medium, but simply tried under the Witchcraft act ? This is NOT the same thing as saying she was a "witch." She had previously been `caught at it`, and any special information she claimed to receive, was worthless in practical terms, and could have easily been obtained by other means. Witches die every WEEK in some African states, now that IS shameful.

Answer 2

In 1934, during a seance in Edinburgh, a sitter made a grab at one of her materializations. The police were called, and the "spirit" was found to be an undershirt. She was found guilty of "fake mediumship" at Edinburgh Sheriffs Court and sentenced to a £10 fine or one month in prison. During World War II, Duncan held a seance in Portsmouth at which she indicated knowledge that HMS Barham had been sunk. Because this fact had been kept from the public, the British Admiralty chose to attempt to discredit her. Police arrested her after another seance. She was initially arrested for vagrancy, a minor offense. Soon, however, the charge was increased, and she faced first conspiracy and then witchcraft charges. The seeming over-zealousness of this prosecution may be explained by the mood of near-paranoia surrounding the impending Battle of Normandy. There were also concerns that she was exploiting the recently-bereaved. It should be noted that the government did not believe she had practiced witchcraft; the 1735 statute covers fraudulent "spiritual" activity. Duncan's trial almost certainly contributed to Churchill's decision to repeal the Witchcraft Act in 1951. However, her original conviction still stood, and a campaign to have her posthumously pardoned is still underway.

Answer 3

She was only convicted under that law because they couldn't find anything else to silence her. She wasn't actually a witch but rather a Psycic/Medium, which is something entirely different so in my opinion yes she ought to be pardonned.

Answer 4

The real reason she was sentenced to prison was that she somehow knew what was then classified information, but I agree that she should not have been prosecuted for witchcraft, the authorities obviously knew who had given her this information but sent a foolish woman to prison rather than the real culprit or culprits.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, the laws against "witchcraft" weren't repealed in England until 1951.
I think it IS absurd that anyone would be "convicted" of witchcraft.

Answer 6

Its all a bit mad but how many thousand of cases during history should we go back and pardon? The courts would be busy till the end of the century... so bad idea

Answer 7

She should have been convicted of fraud.

You can't rewrite history--pardonning the dead is only useful in preventing injustice from entering the history books. In her case, she was a crook whichever way you look at it.

Answer 8

Yes, they should pardon her, it was a stupid reason for her being found guilty of witchcraft anyhow, and they then later repelled witchcraft laws because of her case.

Answer 9

Well, in the name of equality, if a man could be convicted of something similar (like wizardry or something like that) then I think it's ok. Otherwise it's not fair on women and should have been banned.

Answer 10

probably ... it depends what she did to make everyone hate her - after all, how do we know people ever believed in witches?

Maybe they just used it for those people who you know have done nasty stuff but you can't find any courtable evidence