The inquisitors who conducted witchcraft trials were reluctant to base a conviction for witchcraft on two potentially biased informants; however, they concluded that certainty was never achievable and that convictions ought to be based on "great indications and strong suspicions of its truth," such as "a persistent report that the accused has worked witchcraft upon children or animals, etc." Compare this rationale for witchcraft convictions with statements by prison administrators in recent litigation related to supermax classification assignments. Prison administrators contended in briefs submitted to the court that it would be unfair to demand evidence of specific incidents of violence or dangerousness by inmates believed to be gang members before assigning them to severely restrictive prison units. This is because prison gangs are secretive and inherently dangerous. In addressing questions from the court, the prison's respondents commented that even "meager" proof would be sufficient for such a classification, so long as "the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings ... were without support or otherwise arbitrary." In California, gang membership has been determined based on an anonymous informant's statement, possession of literature or art construed as gang-related, writing to another prisoner's family, assisting another prisoner with legal work, sending birthday or "get well" cards to prisoners, and exercising or otherwise interacting with another prisoner suspected of gang involvement. Such violations of due process and contemporary standards of proof for potentially adverse inmate security classification decisions are reminiscent of inquisitorial practices of more primitive times. 30 references