What Don't Two Wrongs Make ...?

For a little while, I seemed to be having some variation on this conversation once a week –

ME: Locking up a cemetery and denying public access is against the law.

SOMEONE: But the Quaker Cemetery is locked!

ME: That would still be against the law ….

Put another way –

ME: Robbing banks is against the law.

SOMEONE: But Dillinger robbed banks!

ME: That would still be against the law ….

The Quaker Cemetery, also called the Friends' Cemetery, is located on Essex Street, right next to my dentist's office; last year I got a crown in the room that looks out over the cemetery. Quakers were NOT welcome in early Salem, and indeed Puritans outlawed the religion and punished Quaker missionaries who came to town to preach or protest.

The cemetery was open for a century, from 1718 to 1818, next to the long-gone meeting house. Findagrave tells us that “Many graves are unmarked and several stones are severely eroded,” and informs us that the cemetery also holds the remains of Quakers transported from other locations in Boston and Peabody.

Pointing out that one cemetery is locked in no way makes locking a second cemetery permissible. I really have no idea what the logic behind that argument is supposed to be. Two wrongs, we were all told as kids, don't make a right.

But it does set a troubling precedent.

One of my concerns, from the very beginning, has been that once the Charter Street Cemetery is locked, it will remain locked. Those in charge will decide that it is easy, it doesn't cost money, and it seems that most people who express an opinion on the matter are in favor of the closure (if only because those of us who opposed it are being ignored). And we already have one locked up cemetery, and no one is complaining about that, so why not a second?

And even if it does not remain locked year round, the city could decide to lock it back up next October. It went so well the first time, right?

When I have pointed out that locking a cemetery is against the law, I am sometimes met with vague assurances that it is allowable if the cemetery is deemed “at risk” or “endangered.” When I have asked, no one has cited a source for this supposed information.* The Quaker Cemetery can in no way be described as at risk or endangered. It is under no imminent threat. But it's locked. And it shouldn't be either.

*people “know” that an endangered cemetery can be locked in the same way people “knew” a witch couldn't recite the Lord's Prayer. It's something they just kinda think has to be true, right? Because it just makes sense. Even it it's not actually documented anywhere. FFS, let's not go making decisions on things we just think must be true; we got into a lot of trouble in town for that last time.