Hale: Excellency, I have signed seventy-two death warrants; I am a minister of the Lord, and I dare not take a life without there be a proof so immaculate no slightest qualm of conscience may doubt it.
Danforth: Mr. Hale, you surely do not doubt my justice.
Hale: I have this morning signed away the soul of Rebecca
Nurse, Your Honor. I’ll not conceal it, my hand shakes yet as with a wound! I pray you, sir, this argument let lawyers present to you.
Danforth: Mr. Hale, believe me; for a man of such terrible learning you are most bewildered - I hope you will forgive me. I have been thirty-two year at the bar, sir, and I should be con-founded were I called upon to defend these people. Let you consider, now - To Proctor and the others: And I bid you all do likewise. In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused? One calls up witnesses to prove his innocence. But witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature, an invisible crime, is it not? Therefore, who may possibly be witness to it? The witch and the victim. None other. Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself; granted? Therefore, we must rely upon her victims - and they do testify, the children certainly do testify. As for the witches, none will deny that we are most eager for all their confessions. Therefore, what is left for a lawyer to bring out? I think I have made my point. Have I not?
Hale: But this child claims the girls are not truthful, and if they are not -
Danforth: That is precisely what I am about to consider, sir. What more may you ask of me? Unless you doubt my probity?
Hale, defeated: I surely do not, sir. Let you consider it, then.
Explain Danforth's argument in your own words. Do you think it is valid? If not, how would you convince Danforth otherwise?
I think that this statement is not valid. I believe that there is always a way to prove that witchcraft has been worked or used. Either someone or something has been affected by it, whether the effect of the witchcraft happens instantly or later on there is more than more han most of the time, proof of it. On the other hand most of the time it is done in a specific way that could make it harder to show that proof. Either way witches should have the right to have a lawyer just as much as an average man to prove they're innocence of this crime.
ReplyDeleteWitchcraft is a crime that cannot be witnessed. Lawyers make a defense on physical evidence and witness accounts of crimes, which there is no evidence of witchcraft or witnesses other than the witch and the victem. I think that this is a valid reasoning so i wouldn't make any objections to it.
ReplyDeleteI think it means that in Danforths argument means that if we the people cannot see that witchcraft cannot be seen then how do we know that something happened because of witchcraft. And the way I would convince Danforth by that saying that wierd things have been happening and that you can't explain the reason a pig,human or something else is floating out of reality or logis then how do you explain it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Danforth is right. Witchcraft is an invisible crime because no one sees it but the witch and the victim. The witch wouldn't turn herself in, and you can't always believe the victim. So, yes, I think his argument is valid.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that there cannot be a witness to convict a witch. Only a witch and the victim of a witch know the truth. Therefore you must believe the victims. I do not think this is valid. I think people around the witch would notice there was something wrong with her. Also, it would just be the victims word against the accused. What makes the victims's word any better than the accused? Therefore it should not hold up in court.
ReplyDeleteDanforth's is saying that no one sees the witches doing the crimes. So why should they have a lawyer. I believe that everyone is entitled to a lawyer no matter what the crime they commit. It does not matter if you are a witch you still committed a crime and you still deserve to have a lawyer to help you with the trial.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that the only people that know if a witch is guilty is the victim and the witch
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that the only people that know if a witch is guilty is the victim and the witch. Therefore they do not need lawyers. I disagree with this. In court it would just be the the victim's word against the accuser's word. And who's to say that one's word is better than the others? Therefore it shouldn't hold up in court. Also, everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how horrible the crime they have committed. Everyone has an argument to every situation and they should have to the right to state their argument just like the victim.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that the only two people who knows whether a witch is guilty of doing something is the witch herself and the victim. The way that he is stating it, he is saying that there should not be any lawers because they dont really know what actually happened. This is wrong because the only job a lawer does is telling the judge what their client wants them to say. I believe everyone deaserves a lawer so that they will have a legitiment argument and a fair chance.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that the only two people who knows whether a witch is guilty of doing something is the witch herself and the victim. The way that he is stating it, he is saying that there should not be any lawers because they dont really know what actually happened. This is wrong because the only job a lawer does is telling the judge what their client wants them to say. I believe everyone deaserves a lawer so that they will have a legitiment argument and a fair chance.
ReplyDeleteDanforth argues that witchcraft is an invisible crime. He goes further on to explain that witchcraft has not a single witness, just the witch and the victim. He believes that all confessions should come from the witch and there is nothing a lawyer would add to the trial that has not already been stated. I agree with this but I do not. I understand what he is saying and I believe it is correct, but there are certain things a lawyer can add that can turn the tides in a trial. The lawyer is an expert in the law, while a witch is most likely not. Therefore, with that logic, it would be wiser and in the witches favor if the witch was represented by a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Putnam believes there is something going on around town. She believes that someone is causing her to have bad luck. The reason being is because she has already had to bury all of her children except one. She know its not Gods idea to bury her kids.
ReplyDeleteI believe Danforth's argument is valid. It is hard to relate to what Danforth is saying because the Puritans believed in different things then we do but I can still see where he is coming from. Danforth says that, because witchcraft is and invisible crime and no one knows that it happened except for the victim(s) and the witch herself how is a lawyer supposed to defend either? Obviously the person being accused of witchcraft would deny it and but that only leaves the accuser's statement which will probably be believed. To convince Danforth otherwise would be difficult to do because of his firm belief but maybe if one were to bring in some form of documentation that proves the witch innocent perhaps Danforth would reconsider his usual way of dealing with witchcraft cases.
ReplyDeleteI think that Danforth is saying that no matter how much people try and get the truth out of the witch there will only be two people who know's the truth,The witch and the person who is involved in the incident.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion Danforth was correct due to the fact that witchcraft cannot be accounted for in trial if no one testifies against the witch. They cannot be accused of the crimes, they may or may not of committed, because it is an invisible crime itself. Without witnesses for the trial to testify against the accused there is no proof for said crime. Danforth stated that he is there be a lawyer in a trial for an accused person, basically stated no matter what the crime he will do his job in defending the wrongfully accused in court. Finally, Danforth had the correct view on the trials of the accusation of witchcraft, because no matter what the crime a person has a chance of being proven innocent in the court of law.
ReplyDeleteWitchcraft is a crime that only involves the witch and her victim. No one else is involved, therefor, there are no witnesses, other than the victims. It is doubtful that the witch will accuse herself, so they can only depend on what the victims say. I think Danforths arguement is valid.
ReplyDeleteI think witches do need lawyers.I wouldn't wanna be blamed for something I didn't do or be called something i'm not. So yes witches did need lawyers in The Crucible
ReplyDeleteI believe that what Danforth think is right because you could not tell if someone was a witch just by looking at someone, but instead you have to have valid information about it not just people saying they think someone is a witch. The only way to know if someone was a witch is to catch them in the act or have them confess, but during these times people would no tell the truth because of the cruel punishment. With all that said it would be really hard to have a lawyer if there is no evidence of you being innocent or guilty.
ReplyDeleteI DON'T THINK ITS RIGHT THAT THEY CAN NOT HAVE LAWYERS THAT IS NOT RIGHT IF YOU ACUSE SOMEONE OF SOMETHING YOU SHOULD LET THEM GET SOMEONE OR SOMEBOY TO REPRESENT THEM THAT IS NOT RIGHT BUT IF CONVICTED ON WITCHCRAFT. BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE TRIAL WIT OUT A LAWYER TO REPRESENT THEM.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion Danforth was correct due to the fact that witchcraft cannot be accounted for in trial if no one testifies against the witch. With witchcraft being an invisible crime, they would need lawyers in their trial to defend their innocence. They cannot be accused of the crimes, they may or may not of committed, due to the fact it is an invisible crime. Without witnesses for the trial to testify against the accused there is no proof for said crime. There is no one to take control and testify for their innocence in court if their are no witnesses. They would need lawyers, to prove they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteI believe that witchcraft can be witnessed, just like Parris witnessed the girls dancing in the woods. Danforth said that witchcraft was an invisible crime, where only the witch and the victim are witnesses. He was saying that if no one will confess, then what is the point for a lawyer? The people who confessed could be untruthful. Every person, witch or not, deserves to have a lawyer in court to plead their case. It never hurts to hear what the witch has to say. Freedom of speech should be a personal right.
ReplyDeleteDanforth says that witches do not need lawyers because of the fact that the only people who know if the person accused is guilty is the witch and the victim.
ReplyDeleteHale is saying that no matter what a person is being accused of , they have the right to be defended by a lawyer in court no matter how terrible the crime may be.
I personally think that they both have a point and that they are both rite and that they need to come to a compromise and kinda meet in the middle so that Danworth does not kill a innocent man without giving him a chance to defend himself in court.
Danforth is saying that witches do not need lawyers. He believes this because he says that witchcraft involves only two people; the witch and the victim. That means that only two people can testify. Who can know that the witch won't lie to save herself? I think that his statement is invalid. This is because we don't know if the supposed "victim" isn't lying just to get rid of the supposed "witch." I also believe that it is a person's right to have a lawyer, no matter what the crime.
ReplyDeleteI believe witches should have the right to have a lawyer because sometimes people are accused of something they didnt do so they need a lawyer to prove their not guilty.
ReplyDeletei think that witches should have lawyers so that they don't get blamed for something that did not happen in the story.
ReplyDeleteMr. Danforth is saying that only two people know the truth, the witch and the victim. So, he says witches don't need lawyers because would someone say that she's a witch? No, but I still don't think it's fair considering that there's two sides to every story, and everyone is capable of lying.
ReplyDeleteYes you do need a Lawyer, because if there is no proof of wrong doings someone has to point that flaw out before the suspect is accused without a chance. Danforth puts out a few ways of explaining how a witch having a lawyer is pretty much legible. In his adjure he implies how do you defend the accused. Especially witchcraft when you can't find witnesses because itself is an invisible crime alone. So for her to be proven guilty is for her to accuse herself and that wouldn't happen anyway if she is in right mind.
ReplyDeleteI think the witches in the Crucible do need lawyers. Why i think that is because, Abigail is accusing Elizabeth for doing witchcraft and then they switch it up Elizabeth is accusing Abigail for doing it. So, if they did not have a lawyer than they both would get convicted of doing it when they went to trail.
ReplyDeleteI think Danforth is saying that only the witch and the victim knows the truth.In that case they don't need lawyers. I don't agree with this. It would be the the victims story against the accusers in court. Everyone have their own story to each situation their in.
ReplyDeleteDanforth says that ''witches don't need lawyers because witchcraft is an invisible crime''. I believe that is a reasonable statement but then again in the same statement whatever you are accused of weather it be witchcraft or murder everybody is entitled to a fail trial and they have the option to have a lawyer or not.
ReplyDeleteDanforth was trying to tell them that they have no proof that she is a witch cause no one else was there to tell what she was doing and even if they were it wouldn't be seen to eye because it was invisible. Yes i do think its valid because they didn't see her do the witchcraft so what proof do they have that when she was in the woods that she was doing witchcraft.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying to need a lawyer you need physical evidence. Witchcraft has no physical evidence. Only the witch and victim knows what happened. It is not a really valid argument. I would argue people could use this to their advantage to gain anything they would want. Like in the story Abigail would gain if she killed Elizabeth or if Mr. Putnam got George Jacobs hanged he could gain land. Even if people had grudge they could call witch and there would be nothing they could do to prove they didn't do it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Danforth is right. Witchcraft is an invisible crime because no one sees it but the witch and the victim. The witch wouldn't turn herself in, and you can't always believe the victim. So, yes, I think his argument is valid.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danforth's statement. Witchcraft is not a crime that can be witnessed because the only people that are involved the situation is the victim and the witch. They do not need lawyers because the victim has to stop the witch on their own. If they were in court, people will ask for proof because they want to believe the person who was telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think the witches do need lawyers cause they don't want to be blamed for the crime that they didn't do. And Danforth is accusing the witches of doing the crime but Mr. Hale claims that the children are not being truthful.But i think the witches do need lawyers
ReplyDeleteI think that Danforth's opinion about witches not needing lawyers is a true fact because if the witches have victims that testify against them saying they used witchcraft of any kind upon them they would probably be rewarded the case but then again they wouldn't have any proven evidence so the case would be rewarded in favor to the other attorney There for if their was a lawyer what is left for him to bring out? He has no further case to finish without evidence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that anyone has the right to a lawyer. No matter there social status or even if they are a witch. Because of the fact anyone can be proven innocent and or guilty, because in every trial their is an innocent person and a guilty one. So yes, I think this argument is not valid.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is trying to tell them that they don’t have any proof that she is a witch, because no one else was around to tell anyone what she was doing. Even if they were, it would not be seen because it was invisible. My opinion is yes it is valid, because the evidence they need to convict her is not there.
ReplyDeleteI think that if he thinks it's an "invisable" crime and doesn't need a lawyer, then it shouldn't even be a crime in the first place.He says it's an invisable crime, meaning that no one can truly prove it, but it exists and speaks for itself, it doesn't need a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that witches do not need a lawyer because they have no proof of a witch's crime. The only people who know about the crime is the victim and the witch. I do not agree with his statement. I think there is always a way to prove a crime. I think everyone should get a lawyer for any crime no matter how small to prove their innocence. Otherwise, it would be the victim's word against the witch's word. Without a lawyer, a judge would just have to go with whoever's word he thought was better. This would not be a legitimate way to go about things.
ReplyDeleteDanforth argument is valid. Due to the fact that noone really can see witchcraft. Im pretty sure the witch would not turn herself in. So a witch would not need a lawyer to stand trial.
ReplyDeleteI think if danforth if he got caught for witchcraft and went to court and he say he needs a lawyer the lawyer could possibly prove that he is not a witch
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this completely!!! This is because you cannot go up to just anybody and call them a witch. Everyone has the right to a lawyer and the right to state what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteHe is saying witchcraft is an invisible crime, and only is witnessed by the witch and the victim. The witch won't turn herself in, so they have to depend on the victim as a witness. I do think the witch deserves a lawyer, just to be fair.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Mr. Danforth is stating that when you go to court you can not have a lawyer. So, if the court accuse you of being a witch and find you guilty you can't say anything about it. That's why I don't agree with Danforth. I will convince Danforth by telling the court that he was a witch and see how he feels about it and then maybe he will change his mind.
ReplyDeleteI think that Danforth is right.
ReplyDeleteHe believes that all confessions should come from the witch and there is nothing a lawyer would add to the trial that has not already been stated. I agree with this but I do not. I understand what he is saying and I believe it is correct, but there are certain things a lawyer can add that can turn the tides in a trial.
ReplyDeleteI disagree because I think anyone has a right to have a lawyer. I think that because the witch doesn't want to be accused for anything she didn't do so I do disagree to that.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is right because he believed that all confessions should come from the witch and there is nothing a lawyer would add to the trial that has not already been stated. I also believe witch need lawyers because in court you can not have a trail without a lawyer backing you up.
ReplyDeleteDanforth claims that witches don't need lawyers, because witchcraft is an invisible crime. I disagree with this Danforths's statement because it think everyone needs a lawyer to have someone to prove with a legitimate reason why they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that there cannot be a witness to convict a witch. Only a witch and the victim of a witch know the truth. Therefore you must believe the victims. I do not think this is valid. I think people around the witch would notice there was something wrong with her. Also, it would just be the victims word against the accused. What makes the victims's word any better than the accused? Therefore it should not hold up in court.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that there cannot be a witness to convict a witch. Only a witch and the victim of a witch know the truth. Therefore you must believe the victims. I do not think this is valid. I think people around the witch would notice there was something wrong with her. Also, it would just be the victims word against the accused. What makes the victims's word any better than the accused? Therefore it should not hold up in court.
ReplyDeleteDanforth is saying that witches do not need lawyers. The only way to know if someone was a witch is to catch them in the act or have them confess, but during these times people would not tell the truth because of the cruel punishment.
ReplyDelete