In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused? One calls up witnesses to prove his innocence. But witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature, an invisible crime, is it not? Therefore, who may possibly be witness to it? The witch and the victim. None other. Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself; granted? Therefore, we must rely upon her victims – and they do testify, the children certainly do testify. As for the witches, none will deny that we are most eager for all their confessions. Therefore, what is left for a lawyer to bring out? I think I have made my point. Have I not?
– Arthur Miller
The Crucible, Act 3. Danforth presents his warped and perverted version of justice. In the judge’s court there is no presumption of innocence. He speaks of having to prove innocence rather than guilt. So the burden of proof is not on the prosecution but on the accused person. The corrupt Danforth goes a step further to make it virtually impossible to defend against the charge of witchcraft. He dismisses the value of a defense lawyer. The only witnesses of this "invisible crime" are the witch and victim, he says. As the witch won’t accuse herself, the court must rely on the victims, in this case the testifying children. In his speech Danforth has aleady made up his mind that Abby’s gang of girls are victims of witchcraft. He doesn’t, like an impartial judge would, consider whether they are testifying truthfully or telling lies, which they are. Danforth’s law means that if you are accused of being a witch, then you are one hundred per cent one.