Woodward 1 Hannah L Woodward Leonard English 11 11 June 2012 Justice is Hung A man is hanged, his neck snaps, body

swinging from the gallows, but was he a guilty man or an innocent victim? Since the Salem Witch Trials, the justice system has improved over time and is now more accurate in telling the crime and criminals at trial. One can tell what happened without ever being at the scene of the crime. Back then, if they were guilty of crime, they died. However, their means of telling guilty or innocent would have killed them as well. This is how the law was, as portrayed in Arthur Millers The Crucible, set back in 1692 at the heart of the Puritans Salem Witch Trials. The Crucible shows the Puritans canon law quite well, as vengeful accusations spread like fire through the heart of Salem, Massachusetts. The lack of evidence to support either cause of vengeance or witchcraft led to unfair trials and conviction. Today, the separation of church and state, the technology and forensics, the advancement in the judicial system, and a set of more practical laws have made court more trusting in ones life and helped to blind Justice over time. This is unlike the canon law held by the Puritans in Arthur Millers The Crucible. To start, the separation of church and state has made the justice system more understanding and protective of ones beliefs and rights as an individual. People are born with natural rights, also known as birth rights and human rights. In the textbook titled Street Law, by Lee P. Arbetman, Edward L. OBrien, and Ed McMahon, the federal law system is laid out in an

Woodward 2 easy to understand use of words and allows for the student mind to analyze the laws and rights given to citizens of the United States today. They lay out both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the most important, First Amendment. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution deal with freedom of religion (Arbetman 475). The freedom of religion is a highly debated freedom in the Supreme Court today. However, between 1791 and 1940, the U.S Supreme Court heard only five cases about church-state relations (Arbetman 476). During WWII, and then on, religion was highly debated with the word of the Holocaust out and different movements for equality. Since 1940, the Supreme Court has heard over a hundred church-state relation cases, over half of them since 1980 (Arbetman 476). The topic of religion being separate from the government, making the freedom of religion truly free, has been debated over and over again. The Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment, states that the government shall not create any law which establishes a religion as the sole religion of the country. This keeps the church and state separate in todays government. However, back in 1692, the Puritans held church and state as one being of authority. In The Crucible, when accusations run rampant of witchcraft in Salem, the court sends out a warrant of the accused witches arrests. John Proctor rejects this authority and these fraudulent accusations: PROCTOR: I'll tell you what's walking Salem - vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law! This warrant's vengeance! I'll not give my wife to vengeance! (Miller 1246).

Woodward 3 When the court brings a warrant for Elizabeth Proctors arrest for witchcraft, John makes a statement about how none of this is the truth and that Abby merely has the town wrapped around her little finger. The authority being of church and state combined is completely absurd in todays world. To help settle all the nonsense of witchcraft rumors in act one, Reverend Parris calls for Reverend Hale from another town, whom knows a lot about the devil in his many forms, to come. When he arrives, he is carrying a heavy load of books. HALE: they are weighted with authority (Miller 1230). Parris mentions how heavy the books Hale is carrying seem, and Hale responds with the comment that they are weighted with authority. The books are later stated that they are about the devil and witchcraft. The books also carry with them the authority to decide if the mischief in Salem is witchcraft or vengeance. The Puritans looked at the written word in general as being truth, whether it were in a book or the law. If it werent for the church and state being one, the young women of the town would not have been caught up in all of this trouble. Abby uses this to her advantage though: MARY WARREN: Abby, weve got to tell. Witcherys a hangin error, a hangin like they done in Boston two year ago! We must tell the truth, Abby! Youll only be whipped for dancin, and the other things! ABIGAIL: Now look you. All of you. We danced. And Tituba conjured up Ruth Putnams dead sisters. And that is all. And mark this. Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you. And you know I can do it; I saw Indians smash my dear parents heads on the pillow next to mine, and I have seen

Woodward 4 some reddish work done at night, and I can make you wish you had never seen the sun go down! (Miller 1223). Witchcraft is a hanging error because of the church and state being one authority figure. Abby threatens the other girls not to mention anything else that happened that night as if she truly knew real witchcraft. Mary and the others obey for fear that she does and for fear of being hung for witchcraft with her. Here, Abby has already begun to establish her power over the girls. She uses the laws set by the church and state to her advantage by accusing Elizabeth Proctor for witchcraft later on. In recent court cases, the separation of church and state has been challenged by laws that seem to bring the church and state together. The United States and its citizens seem bent on keeping church and state separate, as it seems for the better and good of all. A website compiled of religious based court cases titled Religious Movements Homepage Project, or The Religious Freedom Page, exists to explain several church-state related court cases and other cases of religion. In the case of United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, website authors Jeff Hadden and Douglas E. Cowan state: Up until 1989, many federal employees would receive an honorarium for a speech, article, etc. with their federal wages. The Ethics Reform Act, passed in 1989, prohibited this honorarium while also giving only high ranking members a 25% salary increase to offset the loss. This ban included appearances which did not link to their federal duties, and lower ranked federal employees sued stating their rights were violated (Hadden 1). The court ruled with a 5-4 vote that their First Amendment rights had been violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens, stated how that just because someone works for the government, they have not relinquished First Amendment rights (Hadden 3). Justice

Woodward 5 Stevens is correct; there have been issues where presidents have thought they were above the law even, such as Nixon. However, just because the work for the government does not mean they are above the law, nor without their rights. Back in 1692, there was no law that kept government officials from being above the law. In act three, Reverend Hale and Judge Danforth argue back and forth about Marys statement that it was all pretense: 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 many years at the bar, sir, and I should be confounded were I called upon to defend these people. Let you consider, now- 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

Woodward 6 have made my point. Have I not? HALE: But this child claims the girls are not truthful, and if they are not- (Miller 1255). When Hale recommends that lawyers deliver this case, but Danforth has his mind set that he believes the children over the accused, and that their scenes he has witnessed in court are enough proof for him; his mind is set that a crime has been committed. However, isnt the purpose of a trial to decide whether a crime has been committed, and thus if it was by the defendant or not? Judge Danforth has put himself above the law in stating he is the only opinion that matters in the court; this is what the Founding Fathers tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, and thus making everyone equal, as dictated by society over time. Technology and forensics have come a long way since 1692, when Millers The Crucible is set. Today, DNA testing has developed into a major case decider and many countries include a DNA database, which holds DNA of anyone arrested, with or without a conviction, in most of these countries. Ananda Chakrabarty did an article called Where Is the Balance of Justice? for a magazine called BioScience. In her article, she talked about a book called Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties, written by Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli (834). Their book provides thought-provoking examples of the protection of rights of citizens (Chakrabarty 834). The world may have DNA today, but back in 1692, court evidence was a lot different: DANFORTH: I will tell you this-you are either lying now, or you were lying in the court, and in either case you have committed perjury and you will go to jail for it. You cannot lightly say you lied, Mary. Do you know that? MARY WARREN: I cannot lie no more. I am with God, I am with God.

Woodward 7 *+ DANFORTH: These will be sufficient. Sit you down, children. Your friend, Mary Warren, has given us a deposition. In which she swears that she never saw familiar spirits, apparitions, nor any manifest of the Devil. She claims as well that none of you have seen these things either. Now, children, this is a court of law. The law, based upon the Bible, and the Bible, writ by Almighty God, forbid the practice of witchcraft, and describe death as the penalty thereof. But likewise, children, the law and Bible damn all bearers of false witness. Now then. It does not escape me that this deposition may be devised to blind us; it may well be that Mary Warren has been conquered by Satan, who sends her here to distract our sacred purpose. If so, her neck will break for it. But if she speak true, I bid you now drop your guile and confess your pretense, for a quick confession will go easier with you. Abigail Williams, rise. Is there any truth in this? ABIGAIL: No, sir. DANFORTH: Children, a very augur bit will now be turned into your souls until your honesty is proved. Will either of you change your positions now, or do you force me to hard questioning? ABIGAIL: I have naught to change, sir. She lies (Miller 1256). In act three, Mary tells of how the girls are lying, that it was all merely pretense. Abby then claims that Mary is the liar. The case then turns into ones word over another, and since the other girls still follow Abbys lead, Mary is deemed the liar (Miller 1256). DNA has made many cases easier to solve and find a conviction for. In fact, some would say if there is no DNA evidence, there is no case. According to the Innocence Project, twenty-two percent of their

Woodward 8 appealed cases between 2004 and 2008 were terminated prematurely because the DNA evidence from the crime scene was no longer available (Chakrabarty 835). The lack of DNA evidence made it too difficult to even get a solid conviction in these court cases, which ended the cases before they were finished. Having a DNA database can make it easier to keep track of DNA, collecting from anyone arrested with or without a conviction does not matter. The United Kingdom has the worlds largest DNA database (the UK National DNA Database) and has fewer homicide cases (1.5 for every 100,000 people) than the United States (5.7 for every 100,000 people), (Chakrabarty 835). Few might say that the United Kingdom is merely less violent than the United States; however, most would say the DNA database helps solve more crimes and keep criminals off the street. Having DNA also keeps innocent victims from being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Without DNA, like in The Crucible, it becomes one mans word over another, and the only thing you can do is try to make some sense out of the chaos: DANFORTH: I judge nothing. I tell you straight, Mister-I have seen marvels in this court. I have seen people choked before my eyes by spirits; I have seen them stuck by pins and slashed by daggers. I have until this moment not the slightest reason to suspect that the children may be deceiving me. Do you understand my meaning? PROCTOR: Excellency, does it not strike upon you that so many of these women have lived so long with such upright reputation, andPARRIS: Do you read the Gospel, Mr. Proctor? PROCTOR: I read the Gospel. PARRIS: I think not, or you should surely know that Cain were an upright man, and yet

Woodward 9 he did kill Abel. PROCTOR: Aye, God tells us that. But who tells us Rebecca Nurse murdered seven babies by sending out her spirit on them? It is the children only, and this one will swear she lied to you (Miller 1252). Here, John tries to reason with Judge Danforth by pointing out how the accused have all had outstanding reputations throughout the town. Parris tries to undermine his argument by speaking how, in the Bible, the oldest son of Adam and Eve killed his brother Abel. John fires back with how the accusers seem to have bad reputations. However, Danforth does not seem moved by his words in the slightest. If he had true proof, rather than Abby and the girls unique acting skills, he may be able to believe them. Oddly, science would say that the girl were not pretending, but under a true disease. In an article from American Scientist, Mary K. Matossian writes about a disease found by Linnda Caporael which is theorized to have been the cause of the symptoms shown by ones who have been bewitched. In 1976 psychologist Linnda Caporael suggested that those who displayed symptoms of bewitchment in 1692 were actually suffering from a disease known as convulsive ergotism. Convulsive ergotism is a disease caused by eating a substance known as ergot, a.k.a the sclerotia of the fungus Claviceps purpurea. The symptoms, according to Matossians article, are slight giddiness, a feeling of frontal pressure in the head, fatigue, depression, nausea with or without vomiting, and pains in the limbs an lumbar region. In more severe cases, symptoms include formication (feeling that ants are crawling under the skin), coldness of the extremities, muscle twitching, and tonic spasms of the limbs, tongue, and facial muscles. In the most severe cases, there have

Woodward 10 been accounts of renal spasms and urine stoppage, as well as the patient having epileptiform convulsions and, between fits, a ravenous appetite He may lie as if dead for six to eight hours and afterward suffer from anesthesia of the skin, paralysis of the lower limbs, jerking arms, delirium, and loss of speech. He may die on the third day after the onset symptoms (Matossian 355) Using these symptoms, and having grudges against one another in the town, one could easily convince a single biased judge that they were under bewitchment.Chakrabarty asks, How do rights weigh in the balance of justice when compared with the rights of crime suspects, who most likely would not willingly allow their DNA to be used under any circumstances? (835). The advancements in the judicial system, such as adding due process, a grand jury, and expanding the court to nine justices, has helped to blind Justice and make the court system less biased than in canon law; where the minister may be the only one to hear the case, or maybe three ministers, but still ministers.Due process means little to the average citizen unless and until they are arrested and charged with a crime, (Arbetman 166). Due process includes the right to a trial by jury, right to a speedy and public trial, right to compulsory process and to confront witnesses, freedom from self-incrimination, and the right to an attorney (Arbetman 166-171). Such rights did not exist back in 1692: DANFORTH: I cannot hear you. What do you say? You will confess yourself or you will hang! Do you know who I am? I say you will hang if you do not open with me! (Miller 1261). Here, in act three, after Abby conjures up the idea to pretend Mary has changed her form into a bird and threatened her and the girls, Judge Danforth sees that Mary is a witch herself. Danforth tells her to confess, and with the quote Do you know who I am? he seems to say that he is the law and his word is what damns her to

Woodward 11 hanging if she does not confess. How is that just? To blatantly state that he has authority over her life is not bringing justice to anything, but its exactly what Abby wants. This is an example of why having more Supreme Court justices, rather than one judge, or even having a jury to decide, which is anywhere from 16 to 27 people, is better than one man dictating the law. According to Arbetman, OBrien, and McMahon, a grand jury is granted in the Fifth Amendment and has been seen as a chance to be found innocent if the majority vote that there is not enough evidence presented for a conviction (160). Back in the times of The Crucible, a court decision was made by one judge, no jury, and if one such man named John Proctor were to use one conviction to have himself pay the price of a sin not convicted, such would happen: PROCTOR: You will not use me! I am no Sarah Good or Tituba, I am John Proctor! You will not use me! It is no part of salvation that you should use me! DANFORTH: I do not wish toPROCTOR: I have three children-how may I teach them to walk like men in the world, and I sold my friends? DANFORTH: You have not sold your friendsPROCTOR: Beguile me not! I blacken all of them when this is nailed to the church the very day they hang for silence! DANFORTH: Mr. Proctor, I must have good and legal proof that youPROCTOR: You are the high court, your word is good enough! Tell them I confessed myself; say Proctor broke his knees and wept like a woman; say what you will, but my name cannot DANFORTH: It is the same, is it not? If I report it or you sign to it?

Woodward 12 PROCTOR: No, it is not the same! What others say and what I sign to is not the same! DANFORTH: Why? Do you mean to deny this confession when you are free? PROCTOR: I mean to deny nothing! DANFORTH: Then explain to me, Mr. Proctor, why you will not letPROCTOR: Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name! DANFORTH: Is that document a lie? If it is a lie I will not accept it! What say you? I will not deal in lies, Mister! You will give me your honest confession in my hand, or I cannot keep you from the rope. Which way do you go, Mister? Proctor tears the paper and crumples it (Miller 1272). Danforth knows that the confession is a lie, but without it he cannot spare John Proctors life. Him asking for Johns lie and to make it public is absurd, and when John tears and crumples the paper, Justice is hung by her own faulty reasoning, taking the truth with her.The Puritans never forgot the higher law (Fisher 333). The higher law that George P. Fisher is talking about in his article, The Elements of Puritanism, is their deity. The temptation of Puritanism was to substitute a tyranny of the church for a tyranny of the state (Fisher 334). By this, Fisher is talking about how people could blame the government for being tyrannical, even though the government was run by the church as one being. By pointing the finger at the government, the Puritans could easily take their eyes off the canon law as the cause of the chaos. According to Fisher, different systems of church order show their character by their fruits, and they will be judged by their fruits (335).

Woodward 13 Over time, the Constitution has adopted more practical laws in helping better the protection of rights. The First Amendment is a big one, as well as the Establishment Clause, which both have determined many court cases over time.Thomas Jefferson once referred to the establishment clause as a wall of separation (Arbetman 476). The wall he spoke of was separating church and state. The Puritans did not have this separation, as stated many times. MARY WARREN: Abby, weve got to tell. Witcherys a hangin error, a hangin like they done in Boston two year ago! We must tell the truth, Abby! Youll only be whipped for dancin, and the other things! (Miller 1223). Mary says a few things about the Puritans laws here, in act three. Witchcraft is said in the Bible to exist, and thus a man or woman found of witchcraft is hung. Other laws back then were all related to the Bible: Sunday work forbidden, dancing forbidden, lying forbidden, stealing forbidden, etc. The worst thing you could do though, as a Puritan, was deny the life of God. DANFORTH: I will have nothing from you, Mr. Hale! Will you confess yourself befouled with Hell, or do you keep that black allegiance yet? What say you? PROCTOR: I say I say God is dead! PARRIS: Hear it, hear it! PROCTOR: A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring me out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all you black hearts that this be fraud God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together! DANFORTH: Marshal! Take him and Corey with him to the jail! HALE: I denounce these proceedings!

Woodward 14 PROCTOR: You are pulling Heaven down and raising up a whore! HALE: I denounce these proceedings, I quit this court! DANFORTH: Mr. Hale! Mr. Hale! (Miller 1262). After a failed attempt to convince the court that Abbys accusations are fraudulent, John has given up all hope and proclaimed the death of God. Parris sees this as proof of John being against the church as John continues to rant about how the devil shares his face and Danforths. John does this to himself as a self-punishment for his sin of adultery, since when he confessed it, he was not prosecuted for it. He lumps himself together with his enemy, Judge Danforth, and proclaims how Danforth has brought down the kingdom of Heaven and raised a whore [Abby]. Hale, amongst all the madness going on in court, is tired of the blasphemy and quits the court. Chaos has broken out and the ridiculous accusations and lack of evidence has allowed Abigail to win, but in the way she wanted, as John is also thrown into the jail. Cases in the Supreme Court have heard about almost everything there could be between church and state. According to Hadden, a Massachusetts' statute allowed schools and churches to prevent the issuance of alcohol permits to establishments within 500 feet. A restaurant operator sued after a church 10 feet away prevented him from obtaining a permit. He claimed that giving this power to churches violated the Establishment Clause (1). The court held an 8-1 vote that the law was unconstitutional because it substituted religious decision-making for public legislative authority (Hadden 2). The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Burger: The ordinance "substitutes the unilateral and absolute power of a church for the reasoned decision-making of a public legislative body acting on evidence and guided by standards, on issues with significant economic and political implications" (Hadden 3). There was no dissenting opinion written. As

Woodward 15 stated earlier, the case of United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, those who work for the government may not be above the law, but their rights cannot be forsaken due to their job either. They have the same rights as everyone else. As written by Justice Stevens, just because someone works for the Government, they have not relinquished First Amendment rights" (Hadden 3). No one can deny someone of their rights in todays time. This decision acknowledges the interest of a state to have special zoning laws to protect churches and schools. However, when religious bodies are given sole authority in deciding which establishments should be permitted, the state has unconstitutionally divested itself of its authority and transferred it to religious organizations (Hadden 4). In worship, as in government and discipline, order and liberty are to blend (Fisher 337).The United States has been working overtime, creating a justice system in which the people of this nation can feel safe and know who to turn to when they have been wronged. Though some people will turn to their religion, the nation has created a government in which people can turn to that will take action. The system is always undergoing construction, like the roads in Michigan, but that only shows it is always growing. Therefore, the people of this great nation are thankful to the separation of church and state the founding fathers set, for they helped shaped government of this long lasting country at its birth. Also, the technology and forensics of the brilliant scientists from all over the world, whom have used dangerous chemicals and out of this world formulas to help solve the mysteries of human behaviors. Plus the advancements in the judicial system, like the addition of Supreme Court judges, and the right to a trial by jury. Lastly, the addition of set of more practical laws, given to this nation by court decisions and actions made by the people, has blinded Justice to see no bias and put a

Woodward 16 superhero cape amongst the Constitutions shoulders. The fact that this nation has come a long way since the canon law government of Millers The Crucible has given people the hope that even though perfection is not attainable, the government may correct and bring justice to those who have wronged themselves and this nation and thus protecting the rights of those who have done no wrong. As Fisher wrote back in 1881, we neither cut ourselves off from the past, nor make ourselves slaves to the past (336). We merely look back upon the past to learn from our mistakes.

Woodward 17

Works Cited Arbetman, Lee P., Edward L. OBrien, and Ed McMahon. Street Law. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print. Chakrabarty, Ananda M. Where Is the Balance of Justice? BioScience. Vol. 61. University of California Press. AIBS. (2011): 834-836. JSTOR. Web. 18 May 2012 Fisher, George P. The Elements of Puritanism. The North American Review. Vol. 133. No. 299: University of Northern Iowa. (1881): 326-337. JSTOR. Web. 18 May 2012 Hadden, Jeff and Douglas E. Cowan. Religious Movements Homepage Project. United States v. National Treasury Employees Union. The Religious Freedom Page, 19 Feb 2001. Web. 22 May 2012. Matossian, Mary K. American Scientist. Vol. 70. (1982): 355-357. Print. Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. Elements of Literature. Ed. Dr. Kylene Beers and Dr. Lee Odell. Austin, TX: Holt, Rhineheart, and Winston, 2007. 1215-1273. Print.