Cycling UK Forum

Sometimes when I read/listen to the news I see a aspect that maybe the reporter carelessly left open to misinterpretation.

I'm not great when it comes to use of language but, assuming the reports are accurate

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/23/failure-to-pardon-women-persecuted-as-witches-in-scotland-prolongs-misogyny wrote:The failure to serve posthumous justice to the thousands of people – mainly women – persecuted as witches in post-Reformation Scotland “prolongs misogyny”, an MSP launching a bid to grant them a legal pardon has said.....

(My bold and colour)

But I thought a "pardon" was being forgiven for doing something, in effect an admission of guilt. Surely they should be after quashing the conviction i.e. saying they were not witches and thus not guilty of witchcraft.

So often these days a news report seems to use ambiguous language, although the intended meaning is clear, I do find it a bit amusing. Or maybe it just highlights my lack of language skills/understanding.

Ian

I think the reporter is correct, because of the way that pardons work under the law, see for instance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law

I think a conviction is quashed if it is shown to be wrongful under the law, which is different from saying that the law as it existed at the time was wrongful in itself, even though the convictions were rightfully reached under it, which is where a pardon can come in..

I thought the convictions for witchcraft were correct according to the law at the time.
In much the same way as the 2017 Policing and Crime Bill (Turing's Law) pardoned those convicted of consensual same-sex relationships.

Seldom has the subject of witches - or not - been dealt with better than by the Monty Python team... perhaps the Scottish parliament needs a refresher?
https://youtu.be/yp_l5ntikaU

If i remember my History accused witches could never win. if they survived ducking in ponds - guilty .If they drowned and were found innocent fat lot of good it did them.
****************************************************
I ride Brompton and a 100% British Vintage

PH wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 11:50am I thought the convictions for witchcraft were correct according to the law at the time.
In much the same way as the 2017 Policing and Crime Bill (Turing's Law) pardoned those convicted of consensual same-sex relationships.

Debatable. Turing really did participate in a same-sex relationship, while the supposed witches obviously did not really cast magic spells, turn people into toads or fly on broomsticks. (Although if the substance of the charge had been along the lines that they had attempted to cast magic spells or had venerated the Devil then those could possibly have been true).

I think the point is that the law at the time didn’t operate to evidence standards that we would recognise today, so hearsay, anecdote, and stuff that would instantly be recognised as fabrication today were all admissible, so the law could be operated correctly according to the standards of the time, yet deliver a guilty verdict against a trumped-up charge, based on trumped up evidence.

We’re only ever an inch away from that situation, of course.