Contrast essay (The Crucible and Salem witchcraft)

By: Taylor May
In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused? One calls forth witnesses to prove his innocence. But witchcraft is ipso facto…an invisible crime…Therefore, who may possibly be witness to it? The witch and the victim…Therefore, we must rely on the victims [to testify]…what is left for a lawyer to bring out? (Miller 96)
Does this line from Danforth sound familiar in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller? Ever wonder what the difference between the court systems today and the court systems in 1692? The court systems from 1692 and the court systems today differ with regards to results of confession, accepted evidence, and burden of proof.
The Salem courts differ from the courts now with regard to results of confession. The Salem courts decided that if a person confessed they would be set free. For example, Hale wanted Proctor to confess so he would be set free, but Proctor didn’t confess because he didn’t want to have people know him as a witch. On the other hand today’s courts decided that if you confess you will still be punished. For example if the accused confesses they will be punished no matter what. Their punishment depends on the crime.
The Salem courts differ from the courts now with regard to accepted evidence. In the Salem courts accepted spiritual evidence. For instance, Danforth used the fact that the girls were freezing. He said he witnessed that many times, in other words he accepted that spiritual evidence. On the other hand today’s courts needs physical evidence. For instance today’s courtroom need documents, videotapes, and voice recorders, to prove an innocent person guilty.
The Salem courts differ from the courts now with regard to burden of proof. In the Salem courts an accused person was guilty until proven innocent. For example everyone that was being accused of witchcraft in the courtroom was guilty and remained guilty until they could prove that they were innocent. Such as Goody Proctor, she was guilty until she could prove that she was innocent. On the other hand today’s courts say that a person is innocent until proven guilty. For instance people that are accused of killing another person are innocent until there is enough hard evidence to prove them guilty.
Indeed results of confession, accepted evidence, and burden of proof are a few things that separate the court system in 1692 from the court system we use today.