Witches and the pursuit of them were common in early modern Europe and the Americas. While witches are still prevalent in our culture today, they are often seen as a source of entertainment in movies, children's literature, and during Halloween celebrations. A timely topic for October is the historical relationship between witch trials and the law.
Witchcraft Acts
In the 1500s and 1600s, various laws were established across England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland to control magic and witchcraft. Among these, England's three primary witchcraft acts had the most impact on additional regulations and history.
The Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Hen. VIII c. 8) was the first to define witchcraft and to criminalize it as a felony punishable by death without clergy or sanctuary. The Act was repealed after the death of Henry VIII in 1547 (1 Edw. VI, c12) and was not replaced until five years into Elizabeth I's reign.
In 1562, an Act Against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcrafts (5 Eliz. 1. c. 16) reclassified witchcraft as a felony and shifted trials from church settings to secular courts. It also created penalties for first and second offenses that were less severe than death.
In 1604, The Witchcraft Act, officially titled "An Act Against Conjuration, Witchcraft, and Dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits" (2 Jas. I c. 12), expanded the Act of 1562 by increasing the scope of crimes and expanding the death penalty punishment.
Witch Trials
Most of what we know about England’s historic witch trials comes from records of the assize courts. The Assizes, or Courts of Assize, served as the foundation for civil and felony criminal cases in English counties until 1971.
The book Witch Hunting and Witch Trials: The Indictments for Witchcraft from the Records of 1373 Assizes Held for the Home Circuit, 1559-1736 A.D., offers legal insight and a general historical examination of this time period. Some noteworthy sections include the names of convicted witches, jury instructions, jail rolls, and charging details by date within each monarch's reign.
The book is part of the Notable Trials Collection at the State of Oregon Law Library. This collection is not limited to European trials; it also features notable American cases. Among the collection is The American State Trials, a 17-volume set that includes The Trials of Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs. Bishop was the first person sentenced to death during the Salem Witch Trials in colonial Massachusetts, while Burroughs was the only Puritan minister to be executed.
Trials Collection
The law library's Notable Trials Collection includes significant historical trials from Britain and France, the Nuremberg war crime tribunals, and important American trials spanning from the colonial period to the 1980s. This collection addresses a wide range of topics, including treason, sedition, land use disputes, murder and assassination, court-martials, Cold War espionage, art and obscenity, as well as both judicial and presidential impeachments.
August is National Make-A-Will Month, a yearly reminder about the benefits of creating or updating a will. While end-of-life issues may not be everyone's favorite topic, having a plan can help avoid family disputes and costly court proceedings. The State of Oregon Law Library has several resources to help.
What is a will?
A will is a legal document that determines how your assets are divided upon death and who becomes the caretaker of any minor children. It also allows you to establish a personal representative or executor to carry out your wishes.
What happens if you die without a will?
You are not legally required to draft a will. If you die without a valid will, it is called dying intestate. When this happens, state law and the court determine how your assets get distributed. Assets go to your closest relatives first, as defined by Oregon law, regardless of your relationship with them.
Who can create a will?
In Oregon, any person who is 18 or older and of sound mind may make a will. (ORS 112.225)
Where do you start?
The Legal Information Reference Center is a great starting point. This database contains reference books, legal guides, and forms written in plain language. Look for The Quick and Legal Will Book for instructions on drafting a basic will. The Wills & Estate Planning category lists additional end-of-life planning tools. Both are available online with a State of Oregon Law Library Account. Oregon residents can sign up for a free account online.
The Oregon Barbooks are written by Oregon attorneys and published by the Oregon State Bar. Administering Trusts in Oregon and Administering Estates in Oregon are two books that can assist in your life planning. Available in print and online with a digital token.
When should you update and/or review your will?
It's a good idea to review your will every five years or whenever there is a significant change in your life. Examples of changes include:
Other estate and planning tools
An estate plan is a more comprehensive plan that can be used during life and after death. More specifically, an estate plan often includes a will, trusts, a health directive, and various types of powers of attorney.
Using a lawyer
A lawyer can give legal advice on drafting a will and developing an estate plan. Search for Wills or Estate Planning in the legal directories on SOLL's resource page.
The State of Oregon Law Library (SOLL) is thrilled to announce that we are celebrating our 50th anniversary of providing federal government documents to the public!
The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was created to make sure people have access to government information at the local level. Under Title 44 of the United States Code, the public has free access to government documents in designated depository libraries. SOLL officially joined the FDLP program in February 1974.
There are two types of depositories in the FDLP: regional and selective depositories. Regional depositories receive copies of all federal government documents. In Oregon, our regional depository is the State Library of Oregon.
SOLL is a selective federal depository library. That means we choose which federal publications to add to our collection.
Here are some examples of government documents available at the law library:
Visit the State of Oregon Law Library at 1163 State St., Salem, Oregon or online at https://oregon.gov/soll/
One of the major changes to the Oregon state court system occurred in 1981, although much of it was largely invisible to the public. Legislation enacted that year ended county funding of trial court operations (both circuit court and district court), replacing it with state funding. Legislation also centralized the administration of the Judicial Department in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court.
Prior to 1981, the trial court system in Oregon had suffered from two major problems. The first related to funding. Although trial court judges were state employees, the trial courts themselves were essentially a part of county government. Counties provided the courthouses, the court staff, and the most of the cost of court operations.1 The dependence of trial courts on county funding meant that court finances varied greatly from county to county; "[t]he levels of [financial] support are uneven and often unpredictable."2Furthermore, court costs were increasing rapidly, placing a heavy burden on county budgets.3
The second major problem afflicting the trial court system prior to 1981 was inadequate judicial administration, which affected all levels of control. First, the trial court judges often had limited control over their own staff, because the staff was employed by the county.4Second, the presiding judge of the county was often chosen for reasons that had nothing to do with administrative ability (for example, the presiding judge might be assigned based on seniority, or might be rotated automatically among all the trial court judges).5 Third, although the Oregon Supreme Court had been given general administrative authority over the trial courts, it lacked needed powers or the necessary administrative staff to do so effectively.6 The result was that the Judicial Department, as a whole, had "little administrative cohesion and less administrative accountability" than either the Executive or the Legislative Departments.7
Pressure for reform had begun building in the late 1970s.8 When it became clear that 1979 proposed reform legislation would die in committee, the Legislature created a Commission on the Judicial Branch, to study the existing judicial problems and make recommendations.9 The Commission issued its report in early 1981, and the Legislature enacted a majority of the Commission's recommendations in a 1981 special session.
One act made the state the source of funding generally for all trial court operations.10 The Chief Justice was charged with developing a personnel plan, a budgeting plan, and a property management plan for the courts of the state.11 With limited exceptions, all court employees would become state employees under the personnel system created and administered by the Chief Justice.12 Counties would remain responsible for providing courthouse facilities, however.13
A second act gave the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court significantly more authority to function as head of the Oregon Judicial Department.14 Among other provisions, the legislation amended the statute giving the Supreme Court general administrative authority over the courts of the state to make the Chief Justice the administrative head of the Judicial Department.15 The Chief Justice was given the authority to appoint the presiding judges of the trial courts, as well as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.16 That appointment power was intended to insure that presiding judges were chosen for their administrative ability, and to make the presiding judges directly responsible to the Chief Justice.17
One major proposed reform failed, however. The Commission on the Judicial Branch had proposed that the Chief Justice should be selected by the Governor, rather than elected by the justices of the Supreme Court.18 The Legislature referred the matter to the voters.19 On May 18, 1982, the voters defeated the legislation by a large margin.20
The 1981 legislation regarding state funding generally did not become effective until January 1, 1983, to allow time to smooth the transition to state control.21 Chief Justice Berkeley Lent initially shepherded the Judicial Department through the transition and became the first Chief Justice to exercise the expanded powers of the office.22 After Justice Lent stepped down as Chief Justice in the summer of 1983, Justice Edwin J. Peterson became the Chief Justice, and assumed the difficult duties associated with the newly-expanded office.23
Footnotes:
