Why did the Salem witch trials become an example of a danger of plea bargaining?

The Salem witch trials of 1692 serve as a historical cautionary tale regarding the dangers of plea bargaining because they demonstrate how the practice can induce innocent defendants to plead guilty.1

During these trials, magistrates offered accused individuals a stark choice: confess to witchcraft and live, or maintain innocence and face execution. By incentivizing confessions—and further requiring those who confessed to testify against others—the authorities created a system where survival depended on providing a guilty plea, regardless of the truth.1

This historical example is frequently cited to illustrate a fundamental ethical concern in modern law: the risk that the pressure to avoid severe punishment can coerce even innocent people into admitting to crimes they did not commit. This underscores the vital importance of ensuring that all guilty pleas are made voluntarily and are not the result of undue pressure or the threat of disproportionate consequences.1