Witchcraft as a possibility, casting spells, practicing magic, creating potions and ceremonies which alter physical reality, psychological behavior (not the experience of seeing, or being aware of attempts at using magic, but the actual magic itself), or emotional inclinations - do the laws of physics allow this, or not? Can a witch appear as a bird to someone, or appear as someone else to someone? Can a witch mix a potion of herbs and other elements of nature (rainwater, limestone powder) that when ingested by a person can then cause someone to fall in love with that person? Witchcraft, magic, sorcery, divination, conjuring, thaumaturgy, wizardry - are these things within the realm of possibility, or do they by their very natures fall outside the range of the possible? If the answer is, "Yes. They are impossible," then they have never been possible. They have always been outside the realm of possibility. They have always been impossible.
How did something that is impossible to do, cannot be done by anyone at any time ever, become illegal often times resulting in death by execution? Anyone accused of witchcraft was falsely accused. Anyone convicted of witchcraft was falsely convicted. Anyone executed for witchcraft was murdered by a legal system. There are people today who believe these things are possible. Religions of today teach people that they are possible. Because these people believe these things is society obligated to write laws proscribing behavior which cannot be behaved? In this, the 21st Century, there are still people who believe the impossible is possible. Were they educated and chose to adopt this belief, they could be dismissed for being a wise ass. However, if they are ignorant because an affluent society hasn't bothered to have their own citizens educated (because that would cost money the affluent would rather spend on themselves) and are then victimized by religions trying to boost their memberships by sowing fear amongst the ignorant by spreading lies, then that is horrific irresponsibility. But, on whose part? If a society blames its victimized ignorant for their own victimization, then that society is guilty of yet another crime; that of irresponsibility.
The Holy Bible has a line in it. "Suffer not a witch to live among you." This, of course, has ostensibly given permission to kill witches. However, running them out of town would take care of the "among you" part of that sentence. As with the Constitutional Amendment (U.S.A.) for bearing arms the part that says "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" is cast aside as excess verbiage not worthy of mention or note. So, it became historical fact (as with mass shootings in the U.S.) that witch hunts and trials were conducted in Colonial America resulting in imprisonment and execution of people for doing something that has all along been a physical impossibility - practicing witchcraft. It's interesting to find scholars from Harvard University, as well as other notable schools, have opined on these events well into the 20th Century. What's more interesting is how little shrift is given to the fact that all those convicted were convicted of doing something that's impossible to do, and scholars pontificate about how fair the trials were, or how certain people attempted to influence the trials to be fair. One of these actors is the son of a former President of Harvard University, by the way. The great weight of commentary accepts the mentality operating at the time as valid, and understandable enough to stand as its own justification. "You have to understand. That's how people were back then."
That's the point. Such events are excused without condemnation by an assumption of ignorance on the parts of the main actors. Those who are run over, and killed by these people's actions are just numbers to add to the drama of the events. This attitude skews the nature of the people and the events and results in a flawed understanding of what actually occurred. This flawed result serves to permit abhorrent behavior by distorting the scale on which such things are assessed in terms of negativity. It also mischaracterizes which aspects of modern civilization (if any) provided any remedy. There can be nothing admirable in people of society who fanatically harbor fantastical beliefs, then try to justify them with literate articulations. Such people comprising the main history of the English colonies of North America, weighing down that literary heritage with finely-crafted letters and publications, do not vindicate themselves with grammar, vocabulary and punctuation when the basis of their assertions are perverse, even murderous. It is appalling to see scholars of the 20th Century fail to realize this as they admire and adulate these historic figures acting as their apologists, and calling common sense into question with, "You have to understand."