That's a good suggestion, and was the type of thing I was thinking the OP could use to research. It's available on pdf online but I haven't found a good ebook version yet. I'm surprised that the guy that wrote the first version of it wasn't tried and burned himself. Have you read all of it? He didn't just say "If a person is found guilty of witchcraft, the recommended punishment is burning at the stake". No, that would be too easy. He wrote like dozens of possible circumstances each with their own recommended sentence like 1. Found guilty of the worst crimes by multiple witnesses. 2. Found guilty of mild witchcraft by a single witness. 3. Found guilty, but repented before sentencing. 4. Found guilty, but repented after sentencing. 5. Found guilty of mild witchcraft, but the single witness just moved to the village less than a year ago. This seems like something the devil would come up with, like those terms and conditions everyone clicks through online (with apologies to SNL).
^^ Actually the minds that devised the most horrendous things were often the most pious or at least supposedly. It was Christians in the middle ages who came up with all the torments of Hell. Of course it was pre-scientific times, and people were very materialistic. I think the majority of them could only visualize heaven or hell in physical terms, and of course torture was really big in those days. And of course nobody can imagine more perverse things than the censors who think up endless categories of perversions to persecute. There's something about some of the most pious people, or the ones who claim to be completely untarnished and good. They often tend toward unconscious projection and secretly love torture and perversions.
The reason women were burned at the stake for crimes that men would have been hung, drawn and quartered for (treason in England and Wales) was modesty. Burning didn't involve exposure of the woman's body, as Blackstone explains: "For as the decency due to sex forbids the exposing and public mangling of their bodies, their sentence (which is to the full as terrible to sensation as the other) is to be drawn to the gallows and there be burned alive."
I'm amused that you've written "Found guilty of ... by ... witnesses". In a decent justice system, the witnesses would claim that something happened, then a jury would decide on guilt based on the evidence. Then again, looking at the Salem witch trials, it really does seem to be a case of a few girls choosing to accuse whoever they wanted, and few people dared question their honesty. The likes of Elizabeth Hubbard really were pretty much finding people guilty by making accusations.
I was actually paraphrasing what I skimmed over, but you are right, I should have said "found guilty through the testimony of a single witness." The Hammer of the Witches appears to be written mostly as a guide for a judge or judges presiding over the trial, so the decision probably came down to one person or possibly a few. For example, if the person found guilty of witchcraft repented after the verdict, his opinion was that life imprisonment should be considered but that such 'conversions' should not be given too much weight and left it up to the judge or judges to decide whether to carry out the original sentence.
Wasn't this exactly the idea behind the movie, I think it was The Crucible, with Winona Ryder? It was like Mean Girls meets the Salem Witch Trials. Edit—yep: And if you want to see how hardcore cruel witch hunters could be, there's the classic Vincent Price movie Witchfinder General: Of course I don't recommend these as actual research, they're fictionalized movies. But they get across a strong sense of atmosphere and mood, the feel of what it might have been like.
I do believe it was Heresy and against the religious teachings and rule of communities, and the only way to purify the soul and purge the witch was to basically burn them alive to accomplish this kind of morbid purification of the person(s) to be accused of being a witch/warlock.
Way back in the distant past, there was no police or any law enforcement as we would understand it. The population was controlled in different ways. The fear of God was the main one but after that was just fear. The crime rate was largely unreported, but the punishment was often harsh and in public, to act as a warning to others. There was a number of crimes that were impossible to prove or disprove and the victims were exactly that. All over Europe, the same technique of control was used and often the witches would be burnt, thrown over cliffs or whatever as part of a festival.
People believed in witches at around the time period you’re writing about. Witches were perceived as unfriendly and evil at the time. However modern popular fiction such as Harry Potter and movies such as Hocus Pocus has brought another dimension to how modern “witches” are seen and turned around public perception of them. The modern day witch has come a far from the trials she’d have had to endure back in the day.. But How do you suppose the witch has achieved this? ‘Twas a form of witchcraft - or magic- I hear you say? Spoiler
There was. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9f4srd/revision/1#:~:text=During%20the%20medieval%20period%2C%20there,officer%20in%20the%20Middle%20Ages.&text=All%20men%20over%2015%20could,a%20posse%20by%20the%20Sheriff.
