How Is John Proctor Fair In The Crucible

484 Words1 Page

My character is John Proctor. John was accused for witchcraft mostly because he spoke against the witch trials and stated that the girls who were “possessed”, were liars and frauds, setting everything up to accuse other villagers of witchcraft. He also couldn’t remember the 10 commandments by heart, and didn’t attend Church regularly, only coming once a month. Another piece of “evidence” for him being a witch was that he apparently plowed on Sundays, which back then, was considered a high offense. His trial in court was unfair because it violated his rights in the 5th and 6th amendments, by holding his accused crimes against him and holding an unfair trial, he was not protected from injustice and was executed in 1692. John Proctor was denied due process rights because he was to fair …show more content…

Another counterargument is that he refused for the signed paper to go public, but that was because since Salem was such a small village, and your reputation basically defined you as a person. (ex: Sarah Good for being homeless), so him ‘confessing’ to be a witch would most likely ruin him, and his family’s reputations, so it is very understandable as to why he refused. The court also denied him of many rights he had, and had little to no evidence for him to be a witch. John Proctor should have been exonerated since the court had no actual evidence for him to be a witch, only saying he was due to him not attending church regularly, not remembering the commandments, plowing on Sundays, and his statement towards the end of the story without the court’s insight into it. There’s nothing logical about the evidence. The court also violated his rights in the 5th & 6th amendments, and denied him of fair treatment in the due

Open Document