Here we must question the overall righteousness of the acts of the court in “The Crucible”. Is it truly fair that a man who confesses to witchcraft may live, yet one who denies it should die? What if he is really not a witch? Then by the court’s rules, he should die, for having nothing to do with witchcraft. This is entirely the opposite of fair – that someone should be hanged for doing nothing, is pure cold-blooded murder. Now we have a policy that everyone is “innocent until proven guilty,” which, if was in place then, would have saved a lot of innocent lives. The play clearly shows this injustice through the anger of the people of Salem. In “The Crucible,” Giles Corey is pressed to death, to try and get him to confess his sins. This is not only a clear injustice, but it is also a violation of human rights today. A man’s private business is his own to keep, and it should have been up to him whether he wanted to speak out or not, and if not, it is still torture to press someone with rocks until they speak out, or die.
Deputy Governor Danforth says himself, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road.” This means that if a person simply does not agree with one of the court’s views, he or she will be counted an enemy of the court. This once again, is a violation of human rights, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion; and as long as they don’t do anything stupid to disagree with the court they should be allowed to think what they like without being called an enemy of the court. This just goes to show the naivety and ignorance of the legal system in those days – they did not consider anyone’s personal feelings or human rights, and did not even think that maybe if they treated their people better they might be more willing to help them.
At one point, Danforth almost redeems himself, when he seems to realise the error of his ways. In Act Four, when Hale tries to give the condemned a bit more time, Danforth denies him this, but at least he gives a just reason. He explains that “twelve are already hanged for the same crime. It is not just” to set people free for something others have died for. It may seem wrong at the time, because the reader does not want to see some of the main characters die, but in one way he is right – the families of those who had already died for the same crime would be angry that others had got away with it, maybe provoking riot or disruption in the town. However surely it is never too late to redeem yourself, and after all, “two wrongs don’t make a right” – this is entirely true. Continuing to kill people for a crime they have not committed, even when you have realised the error of your ways, is just cruel.
Justice is a word inextricably linked to truth and honesty, which is also a major theme throughout “The Crucible.” The turning point in the play is when Mary Warren tells the court that the whole of the girls’ activities which had been blamed on witchcraft were really “pretence”, and she claims that they are all lying. This is a pivotal moment, which just goes to show how important truth and honesty are in this play. The entire play revolves around one statement, and the plot is dramatically affected by whether the characters in the book believe it to be truth or lies, and we never find out who was telling the truth. The whole story from this point on is based on this one lie. The actions of Mary Warren are rather suspicious throughout the play. At first she is working with the rest of the children, in their witchcraft in the forest at night. However in Act Three she suddenly decides to claim that these activities were pretence; that the girls had been lying to try and condemn their enemies, after being forced to by Proctor. However, later in the Act she suddenly changes sides again, and says that John Proctor is “the Devil’s man” and goes back to join the children. The reader knows that this is because of something that Abigail William’s has said or done. This rather confuses matters as the reader is not entirely sure who to believe. Although Proctor has admitted to various things such as not knowing his Ten Commandments, he comes over in the play as a decent, genuinely good man. His faults only go to make him easier for the readers to identify with – he is only human after all. Now Mary accuses him of being in league with the devil, which somewhat shocks the audience. However we can almost instinctively tell that Proctor is really the “good” man in the play; because he has a sense of morality about him that none of the other characters seem to possess.
Morality is something at work very strongly in John Proctor. At the end of Act Four, when he has decided to confess to witchcraft so that he can live with Elizabeth, Danforth and Parris are trying to make him sign an official document to prove this. However, he objects, saying to them “you have all witnessed it; what more is needed? It is enough”. His determination show just how badly he wants to stay with Elizabeth, but at the same time how much he hates lying, and being known as a liar. He wants to go free, but without his name being taken from him. As he explains, “I have given you my soul, leave me my name!” Proctor has pride, and dignity, and morals, and he does not want his name blackened by having a document nailed on the church door for anyone to see, claiming that he is a witch. As he says, it is enough that the officials of the court have seen and heard him confess to witchcraft, and God himself has seen it done – so why should they need his signature? He does not want to have to live with everyone thinking he is a witch, or was in any way involved with witchcraft, and he cannot bear the thought of his name being pinned on the church forever to be used simply as propaganda, as a warning against taking part in any sort of witchcraft. It is humiliating, and degrading, and Proctor is above that. When they will not accept no for an answer, Proctor does a surprising thing; he changes his mind. He would rather die and keep his name clean than live with it blackened. This is the most powerful act of morality throughout the entire play. To see a man die for something he believes in is the only thing that truly proves his nobility and lets him keep his dignity. The play is written in such a way that makes this even more moving, as you see Proctor’s wife next to him throughout the scene, unable to make him change his mind, and Danforth and Parris trying to persuade him to give up and sign the document, but he refuses. No one wants him to die, but he has to, because of what the law says at the time. This makes it even worse; that even the men who have hanged many others for the same crime are trying to make him live, but there is nothing they can do. The very last scene is very powerful, and when we see Proctor ride off towards his death, we finally understand one of the morals of the book – stand up for what you believe in, no matter what.
Arthur Miller is able to make this moral incredibly clear, because he himself has gone through a similar experience. The play is based on the McCarthyism era, when American communist were hunted like the witches in Salem, and made to name other communists to prove they had abandoned their left wing views. Many fell to McCarthyism, but a few stood up for their beliefs – Arthur Miller being one of them. This is reflected in John Proctor throughout the play, and both men share the same thoughts and morals. It is obvious that Miller really wanted to put across the idea of being an individual, and standing up for what you believe in, and to show the irony of how unjust the justice system really was in those days, and still is in some places. It is clear he was very passionate about these things, and it really comes across in this play – just the words are enough to give a good impression of what he is trying to show, and builds up an image of each of the characters which the reader can really relate to.
