N Salem Village in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Bridget Bishop, the first colonist to be tried in the Salem witch trials, is hanged after being found guilty of the practice of witchcraft.
Trouble in the small Puritan community began in February 1692, when nine-year-old Elizabeth Parris and 11-year-old Abigail Williams, the daughter and niece, respectively, of the Reverend Samuel Parris, began experiencing fits and other mysterious maladies. A doctor concluded that the children were suffering from the effects of witchcraft, and the young girls corroborated the doctor’s diagnosis. Under compulsion from the doctor and their parents, the girls named those allegedly responsible for their suffering.
On March 1, Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba, an Indian slave from Barbados, became the first Salem residents to be charged with the capital crime of witchcraft. Later that day, Tituba confessed to the crime and subsequently aided the authorities in identifying more Salem witches. With encouragement from adults in the community, the girls, who were soon joined by other “afflicted” Salem residents, accused a widening circle of local residents of witchcraft, mostly middle-aged women but also several men and even one four-year-old child. During the next few months, the afflicted area residents incriminated more than 150 women and men from Salem Village and the surrounding areas of satanic practices.
In June 1692, the special Court of Oyer and Terminer ["to hear and to decide"] convened in Salem under Chief Justice William Stoughton to judge the accused. The first to be tried was Bridget Bishop of Salem, who was accused of witchcraft by more individuals than any other defendant. Bishop, known around town for her dubious moral character, frequented taverns, dressed flamboyantly (by Puritan standards), and was married three times. She professed her innocence but was found guilty and executed by hanging on June 10. Thirteen more women and five men from all stations of life followed her to the gallows, and one man, Giles Corey, was executed by crushing. Most of those tried were condemned on the basis of the witnesses’ behavior during the actual proceedings, characterized by fits and hallucinations that were argued to have been caused by the defendants on trial.
In October 1692, Governor William Phipps of Massachusetts ordered the Court of Oyer and Terminer dissolved and replaced with the Superior Court of Judicature, which forbade the type of sensational testimony allowed in the earlier trials. Executions ceased, and the Superior Court eventually released all those awaiting trial and pardoned those sentenced to death. The Salem witch trials, which resulted in the executions of 19 innocent women and men, had effectively ended.
Answer:
The correct answer is option B.
Explanation:
A cartel can be defined as a group of independent producers who come together to form a group in order to improve profits. In an oligopoly market, there are few firms in the market. The firms are such that the economic decisions of one firm or producer affects their rivals.
In such a situation, the firms come together to form a cartel to protect their interests. In a cartel, production limits are set for all producers so that the price is high. But cartels are generally short-lived.
This is because the individual producers have incentives to cheat the cartel by producing more than a set limit so that they can increase their profit and market share.
Answer:
Explanation:
Yes, Disparate Impact Theory can be used in this case relating to the processes of subjective selection such as interrogations. If a discriminatory workplace practice has an unfair and aggressive impact on minorities, it may be in violation of Title VII. Professional individual employees who support on the basis of discretionary judgments without intending to do so are engaging in biased conduct.
The case of Watson V. Fort Worth Bank & Trust will be used to support my claim. Clara Watson turned down a promotion that was contingent on an interview under this scenario.
The U.s. Supreme Court Declared that a Title VII claim to a strategy of subjection enforcement can only be investigated under the unequal care principle. In the majority decision, the Court allowed the principle of (disparate effects) to apply to arbitrarily defined work practices.
