Johann Weyer - witch law reformer

From Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Thomas M. Sapolsky, Chapter 16. An argument for the not letting the best be the enemy of the good. Alternatively, an argument that when concepts are outside the cultural Overton Window, it is better to reform incrementally than reform completely. Notice the distinction between "classically liberal" and "progressive liberal". Similar sounding but dangerously different. The former progresses and the latter regresses.

Most of the time I’m a clichéd card-carrying liberal; I even know the theme songs to many of NPR’s programs. Nonetheless, this chapter won’t take anything resembling a liberal approach to reforming criminal justice. The reason why is summarized in the following example of a classically liberal approach to a legal issue.

It’s the middle of the 1500s. Perhaps because of lax societal standards and people being morally deprived and/or depraved, Europe is overrun with witches. It’s a huge problem—people fear going out at night; polls show that peasants-in-the-street list “witches” as more of a threat than “the plague” or “the Ottomans”; would-be despots gain supporters by vowing to be tough on witches.

Fortunately, there are three legal standards for deciding if someone is guilty of witchcraft:

The flotation test. Since witches reject the sacrament of baptism, water will reject their body. Take the accused, bound, and toss them into some water. If they float, they’re a witch. If they sink, they’re innocent. Quickly now, retrieve innocent person.

The devil’s-spot test. The devil enters someone’s body to infect them with witch-ness, and “that point of entry is left insensitive to pain. Systematically do something painful to every spot on the accused’s body. If some spot is much less sensitive to pain than the rest, you’ve found a devil’s spot and identified a witch.

The tear test. Tell the accused the story of the crucifixion of Our Lord. Anyone not moved to tears is a witch.
These well-established criteria allow authorities fighting this witch wave to identify and suitably punish thousands of witches.

In 1563 a Dutch physician named Johann Weyer published a book, De Praestigiis Daemonum, advocating reform of the witch justice system. He, of course, acknowledged the malign existence of witches, the need to punish them sternly, and the general appropriateness of witch-fighting techniques like those three tests.

However, Weyer aired an important caveat pertinent to older female witches. Sometimes, he noted, elderly people, especially women, have had atrophy of their lachrymal glands, making it impossible to cry tears. Uh-oh—this raises the specter of false convictions of people as witches. The concerned, empathic Weyer counseled, Make sure you're not torching some poor elderly person simply because her tear ducts don't work anymore.

Now that's a liberal reform of the witch justice system, imposing some sound thinking in one tiny corner of an irrational edifice. Much like what scientifically based reform of our current system does, which is why something more extreme is needed.