Posted by M on Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 9:33pm.
Please give feedback on the following essay which is supposed to say if I agree or disagree that the pure in heart need no lawyers...
English Period 2
2 November 2010
The Pure in Heart
In Act III of the Crucible, Danforth states, “the Pure in heart need no lawyers”. It is my belief that what Danforth is implying is that if you are innocent you don’t need to prove it. Personally, I disagree. The quote “the pure in heart need no lawyers,” is faulty and wishful thinking because we live in an imperfect world.
In the crucible, there are accusations toward some of the town’s woman for witchcraft, which eventually, John Proctor becomes the accused, but that is not the true crime for which he is actually guilty. The statement by Danforth is actually ironic because the one being accused is actually not pure of heart. Proctor chose to have relations outside of his marriage to Elizabeth, with Abigail. He had temptations which he allowed himself to fall prey to. He is carrying on an affair, does not tell his wife, keeps it a secret to many others around him, to the detriment of the whole town.
There have been instances where someone is innocent (pure in heart) yet accused of a crime. Is it fair for someone to be accused of a crime that they didn’t commit? “A key element to the survival of anyone being falsely accused is to assure their legal defense is proper and adequate.” It is necessary for the accused to have legal defense, simply saying I did not do it, is not effective, and there is the possibility that one’s words will not be believed. The court system cannot be expected to take words alone as proof, evidence must be provided.
In the Crucible, 140 people were accused of witchcraft. 19 people were hung, one person pressed to death, and as many as 13 may have died in prison. 43 were afflicted. (Miller) Trails were not fair, evidence was not reliable. Witnesses should have been subjected to cross examination. The defendants should have legal assistance and be allowed to testify of their own behalf and judges should be unbiased (author). They needed a lawyer to defend them. Although they were pure in heart, they were not able to convince the court they were innocent.
Danforth is confusing two different things, law and church. The statement pure of heart is a scriptural statement, someone can be a church abiding citizen, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will not do something wrong. Someone may have the best of intentions, and still do wrong. Not everyone’s idea of right from wrong is the same, that is why we have to have officials that are in a position to make that call--judges.
An example is in a recent case called Gonzales tries the ‘Pure in heart empty head’ defense. Gonzales the accused states that he asked attorneys to leave and that he didn’t mean anything improper by doing it. He said that it was for performance reasons, yet, he never reviewed their performance. When pressed on the subject, he stats he had no role in the decision, and that he had no partisan reason for doing it, and that the public should give him credit for his pure heart. Either way he doesn't deserve to stay in office; I suppose, though, the difference might matter to a grand jury.
The pure in heart can be victims to those who are immoral. For such injustice, a pure hearts only hope may be to have someone who has been educated solely for the purpose of representing and is able to uphold truth in the court. The quote, “A person is either with the court or he must be counted agains it, there be no road between” (Miller, 94) shows that Danforth is confusing law and church. These examples clearly show that Danforth is lacking the skills of an effective lawyer for court, and work against his credibility of his values and statements, such as about the pure in heart.
An accused may be innocent, but truth of it is they need proof to be proven innocent. In court you need someone to be present and validate you. “The basic structure of law began with judicial precedence which meant that the courts interpret the law.” The fifth amendment grows in explanatory reach. Now we have two bodies of law, civil and criminal for legal and equitable remedies.() this shows the evolving of the system.
- English - PsyDAG, Friday, November 12, 2010 at 12:28pm
I do not have time to response to your whole paper, I will just critique the first paragraph.
In Act III of The Crucible (TITLE UNDERLINED OR IN ITALICS), Danforth states, “the Pure in heart need no lawyers”. It is my belief that what Danforth is implying ("IMPLIES") is that (COMMA) if you are innocent (COMMA) you don’t need to prove it. Personally, I disagree. The quote (COMMA) “the pure in heart need no lawyers,” is faulty and wishful thinking (COMMA) because we live in an imperfect world. In The Crucible, there are accusations toward some of the town’s woman (PLURAL) for witchcraft, which eventually,(NEW SENTENCE) John Proctor (IS HE A WOMAN?) becomes the accused, but that is not the true crime for which he is actually guilty. The statement by Danforth is actually ironic (COMMA) because the one being accused is actually not pure of heart. Proctor chose to have relations outside of his marriage to Elizabeth, (NO COMMA) with Abigail (TO AVOID CONFUSION, PUT THIS PHRASE AFTER "RELATIONS."). He had temptations which he allowed himself to fall prey to. (AWKWARD SENTENCE. REVISE. "HE FELL PREY TO....") He is carrying on an ("A SECRET") affair[, does not tell his wife, keeps it a secret to many others around him,] (DELETE MATERIAL BETWEEN BRACKETS.) to the detriment of the whole town.
The caps are for contrast. Some of your sentences are too long. Review your use of commas.
In the future, if nobody is available to proofread your work, you can do this yourself. After writing your material, put it aside for a day — at least several hours. (This breaks mental sets you might have that keep you from noticing problems.) Then read it aloud as if you were reading someone else's work. (Reading aloud slows down your reading, so you are less likely to skip over problems.)
If your reading goes smoothly, that is fine. However, wherever you "stumble" in your reading, other persons are likely to have a problem in reading your material. Those "stumbles" indicate areas that need revising.
Another option, if it is available on your computer, is to have the computer read it to you.
Also, make use of "Spelling and Grammar" under "Tools" in your word processing program.
Once you have made your revisions, repeat the process above. Good papers often require many drafts.
I hope this helps.
Answer this Question
English - In the crucible the pure in heart need no lawyers, agree or disagree, ...
English 7: Wk Sht - Perseverance - I have to answer these 4 questions and in ...
English - I am writing an essay about James Baldwin's Go Tell It on the ...
English - Huck struggles to decide what he should do when his heart and his ...
English 3 - In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck struggles to decide what...
Critical Thinking - Address the following: What feedback did you receive from ...
English - Since you read an actual letter from Melville to Hawthorne, you got a ...
Literature - Is this alright? Explain why it is important to be able to say what...
Sentencing - Do you agree or disagree with the argument that crime seriousness ...
Agree or disagree with this statement US history - Agree or disagree and why?-- ...
For Further Reading