How Did The Salem Witch Trials Influence The American Legal System

During the 1600s, Puritan religious beliefs heavily influenced the American legal system, which led to the Salem Witch Trials in 1692. Many years later, the American author, Arthur Miller, shares the story of the chaos that ensued following the first witch accusation in his play titled The Crucible. In Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, the witch trials prove religion taints judgement on justice, and leads to inconsistent legal actions and decisions. The unjust consequences, the success of the baseless accusations, and the conflicting legal choices demonstrate the legal inconsistencies in the play.

Firstly, the court provides those who admit to witchcraft more leeway than those who deny the accusations. At the beginning of the play, the audience

As the victim, she receives special treatment by the governor, as revealed by John Proctor. For example, he expresses “No, no, but I hear only that you go to the tavern every night, and play shovel-board with the Deputy Governor and they give you cider” (Miller 149). Since she confesses to being a victim, there are no repercussions, regardless of how truthful she was during her confession. In addition, Tituba, the witch in question, is also free, since she was honest and confessed her sins to God (Miller 45). For instance, “We goin’ to Barbados, soon the Devil gets here with the feathers and the wings” (Miller 122). Even though she committed a grave crime and broke the law, she was able to avoid facing any consequences and leave the country unscathed. In other words, the two individuals who unintentionally initiated the Salem Witch Trials, leading to the deaths of dozens of innocent people (Peabody Essex Museum), received respect and evaded any and all punishment for their actions. Conversely, the punishments of those who deny accusations of witchcraft and wizardry are exceedingly severe. In order to avoid the consequences,

Primarily, court officials act on belief rather than on proof and fact. For instance, while defending his wife, John Proctor asserts “Why do you never wonder if Parris is innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now?” (Miller 77). None of the officials doubt or question the accusers, and their word is enough evidence to prove someone’s guilt and seal their fate, according to Proctor’s observations. Illustratively, they use their faith as a guide as to what is--or is not--viable proof. Moreover, Danforth justifies the lack of evidence by saying witchcraft is an invisible crime. For example, he asks “But witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature, an invisible crime, is it not?” (Miller 100). Since the only witnesses to the crime of committing witchcraft are the victims and the witches themselves, according to Danforth, he believes that the story told by the victims is the only proof he needs to build his case, when in modern times, a case built on the victim’s word against the abuser’s word would be a lot more complicated. According to the LLF Law Firm, if there is no proof, it all boils down to who “is believed to be more credible than the other”. However, in the play, the determination process to conclude who is more credible in each situation is nonexistent, therefore making