February 21, 2017

Homework Help: Englis

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...
Brandi Lubrano
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.

Answer This Question

First Name:
School Subject:

Related Questions

More Related Questions