Parris is thinking about blaming it on witchcraft without even asking a doctor first but Proctor is trying to convince him otherwise. This shows that from the beginning John is trying to deny that there is witchcraft and keep the rumors from spreading. It shows that he really cares for the town and the people in it, if he did not care, he wouldn't try to protect it. Later on in Act One, John proves that he is questioning everything that is starting to happen in Salem. Parris starts to bring in wardens and officials to investigate the issues at hand.
Steve’s judgment of his actions is similar to a pendulum swinging. Although Steve believes within himself that he is innocent, of the important people around him, make him insecure as to the degree of his innocence and turn to others for confirmation. Steve Harmon, the defendant, is faced with an internal conflict that questions his self-identity and his character in relation to the crime.
He uses an analogy to further prove his point on the crime of being a person who isn’t able to sustain themselves to a greater extent. From the start of his speech, he is unsure of what he really wants to say. He makes an analogy in which he does not mean “that it is a crime to be poor. Murder is a crime, but
Steve uses rhetorical questions to imply that he knows what he did wrong, but does not want to admit to the crime. He writes his part in the crime casually, which further conveys the conflict in his mind. He depends on others to bring clarity to his mind, such as saying, “What did I do?”. After the session at court was finished, Steve was insecure about what Ms. O’Brien, his lawyer, thinks of him. He
Proctor and Hale, are similar because they both see the genuine motivations behind the accusations and struggle to defend the people being harmed. Despite these similarities, they also have major differences in their nature; since they have contrasting levels of devotion to Puritanism and to the moral principles they live by. Reverend Hale and John Proctor are both similar because they discover the malicious intentions of the accusations, and tries to avert further damage dealt by these false accusations. When John first hears about the trials, he doubts the legitimacy of the court proceedings. He even considers going to Salem to persuade the Deputy Governor from convicting innocent people.
Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194). This shows Alex’s true opinion in that he believes that killing a man who was clueless doesn’t make it right. It also shows he thinks everyone is innocent until proven guilty just like most cops are caught not and that he believes only courts can issue punishment not some group of vigilante
Anyone that is an orphan more than likely won’t commit murder. It’s simply not logical. That’s what the attorney is basically telling the jury. This is a way to sway the audience’s opinion to a situation by using their emotions against them, too forget about the real problem at
This shows John’s heroism because not many people would openly admit to disliking their minister, especially when they are being interrogated for witchcraft. He stood up for his opinion even when the stakes are so high. Such a statement would be taken as an act against the church directly, though Hale senses John’s honesty and takes the statement at face value. Another clear example of John’s heroism happened towards the end of the play when he refused to sign his confession. In refusing to do so, he called out the corrupted justice system.
Atticus goes against the grain of the majority that would rather see Tom proven guilty for a crime he did not even commit. He is willing to be an individual amidst town pressure to be otherwise. Perhaps the most valuable quote illustrating individualism and belonging is again
Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Einstein is implying by this statement, in a more fundamental state, “criminals are not at fault for their crimes.” This is, of course, incorrect; one cannot use a bystander as a scapegoat. However, what did he mean by his statement? Is his quote to be taken literally, where onlookers to crimes are more guilty, or rather as a metaphor, simply implying the observers’ faults? His statement is superficially untrue, but multiple perspectives can offer numerous explanations of what he meant. From a literal standpoint, Einstein is most certainly inaccurate.
Proctor begins his pleas by stating he needs assistance to get the favorable view, especially if no one steps in to show mercy. And how the Magistrates already are delusioned by the devil yet they know they are innocent. Although they were imprisoned they were still being accused of being seen making no sense to him. Then brings in how the Carriers sons were tormented till saying the “truth” but how they blamed their mother making her serve nine weeks. Even so his own son did not want to “confess” and could have continued to be tortured if no one had stepped in, which I believe if someone with power had stepped in since the start they would have not gone on that mad killing of
Who threatens and yet blusters. His name speaks clearly as to his past. He believes that he has been misidentified by his past crimes. In addition, while he might have been falsely accused for the first crime, it is clearly shown that he is not afraid to inflict pain upon his victims. When the Grandmother asks him about prayer he shows that he believes that there is no need for prayer, that he is doing “all right by [himself].” The Misfit is clearly knowledgeable about the scripture, showing that at one time he, himself, had a spiritual
He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is. However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power. Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face.
To me, the arguments made by Beccaria, Howard, and Diderot against the mistreatment of absolutely anyone offered a new concept toward the perspective of conservative members of society to the marginalized population they condemned and exploited. In Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishments, he asserts that the method of torturing people accused of crimes is neither necessary nor ethical, because no one is aware if they are either guilty or innocent. I found it interesting that he mentioned the accused who are weak and succumb to the torture and confess to a crime they did not commit because it emphasized the insufficiency of this method of determining guilt. It seemed as if a prosecutor during their time would employ this strategy to quickly convict
Not only did the attorney use no real evidence to support his case towards Jefferson but the attorney also was not confident in his case. In one part of the court scenes Jefferson’s attorney states “He is innocent from all charges against him. But let’s just say he was not. Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life?” ( Gaines pg: 8) This is a perfect example on how the attorney believes Jefferson is guilty in his case because in the end he gave the jury a mental image for a moment to vision Jefferson being guilty and then comparing the relationship on whether it matters to keep this man alive or not.