The Crucible Case Analysis

1129 Words3 Pages

The body of civil law that once governed the Roman people, the Digest of Justinian, states in article 22.3.2, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies. This presumption of innocence, the idea that all men are innocent until proven guilty, lies at the heart of all court systems on our holy earth. If not for this principle, any manner of blind accusations could be made, all of which would hold equal merit. The very situation has arisen here in Salem. The cry of witchcraft has explained a many number of misfortunes that have befallen on a many number of people. In the case of a physical robbery, with no interference of the metaphysical or the spiritual, how may we tell …show more content…

Why would one defile oneself if not for a clear intent? The intent, as brought forth by Mr. John Proctor, was to dispose of Goody Proctor on account of her relationship with John. This motive, I will remind you, was never shown to be false by the court. By using improper methods it was determined an adultery committed between John and Abigail did not exist. Asking John to predict Elizabeth’s answer is complete speculation. He couldn’t possibly know what Elizabeth’s response would be, the only person in the world who could, is herself. Basing a court ruling on this speculation is a dishonest use of the power of a judge. These possible motives, along with Mary Warren and Elizabeth Proctor’s claims of who made the poppet, put at the very least equal, but likely much more merit to the claim of …show more content…

However, there is ample proof for the case of Elizabeth Proctor’s innocence, but little for her conviction. The numerous inconsistencies within the fabrication with which Abigail has poisoned your mind, along with her direct motives to dispose of Goody Proctor give way for numerous doubts concerning Abigail’s claim. These doubts contradict the very idea of proof. And if one is not proven guilty,we are indeed obligated to consider them innocent. I speak directly to the jury when I say: consider her

Open Document