The Crucible and 12 Angry Men are two differing plays that unite in the aspect of the justice system. In both plays, we have the conflict that the accused are seen as guilty before the evidence is thoroughly looked into. A difference that sets the two plays apart is that the young girls accused of being witches are not given as much of a chance as the young boy accused of murder. This is due to the differing time periods in which both plays took place in. These similarities and differences are tied together with John Proctor and Juror #8, opposers of the unjust ideologies. Although The Crucible and 12 Angry Men are set in different time periods and tell completely different stories, their themes on the justice system align with certain aspects.
…show more content…
The defendants in The Crucible are the young women in Salem who have all been accused of working with the devil. Although it is not explicitly stated, all the women are found guilty and are not given much of a chance to prove themselves innocent. Arthur Miller writes, “ But, Mr.Proctor, they will not hang them if they confess.” (Miller 58-59). It is seen that once any woman is accused of being a witch in Salem, it is highly unlikely that she does not either get hung or serve time in jail. We also see this when Mary Warren arrives to see Proctor, as she claims that there have been thirty-nine women arrested and the number is only growing. This number proves that not many, if any at all, have been able to break free from the injustice of the judicial system. The defendant in 12 Angry Men is a young man who has been accused of murdering his own father on the charge of murder in the first degree. It is stated, “Nine... ten ... eleven... That's eleven for guilty. Okay. Not guilty? (NO. 8's hand is raised.) One. Right. Okay. Eleven to one, guilty.” (Rose 4). At first glance, all the jurors excluding Juror #8, view the boy as guilty. They claim that this is due to the evidence they were presented with, but it is also related to their bias and the fact that they want to go home as early as possible. This can be seen when Juror #7 states, “ Let’s vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go …show more content…
The Crucible is set in a time period where words and non-credible witnesses were the only sources of evidence that the court used to convict the accused. According to John Proctor, “And why not, if they must hang for denyin‘ it? There are them that will swear to anything before they‘ll hang; have you never thought of that?” (Miller 69). In this quote, John explains that the young ladies are most likely pleading guilty to interacting with the devil with the knowledge that if they don’t they will be hung. He states that the women do not have much of a choice. Due to this, we see that not much tangible evidence is used in the courts in Salem. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men is set in a time period where words have to be proven to be true in order for someone to be convicted of a crime. Reginald Rose emphasizes the following scene, “(NO. 8 takes the diagram and sets it up on a chair so that all can see it. NO. 8 looks it over. Several of the jurors get up to see it better.)” (Rose 39). The actions of the jury demonstrate that although they might not care as much as they should for the boy since Juror #8 cares, they are willing to listen. Juror #8 argues the evidence given throughout the trial to prove not guilty with reasonable doubt. This sets both plays a part in the sense that John does not have supporting evidence to prove his ideas while Juror #8
The defendants in The Crucible are the young women in Salem who have all been accused of working with the devil. Although it is not explicitly stated, all the women are found guilty and are not given much of a chance to prove themselves innocent. Arthur Miller writes, “ But, Mr.Proctor, they will not hang them if they confess.” (Miller 58-59). It is seen that once any woman is accused of being a witch in Salem, it is highly unlikely that she does not either get hung or serve time in jail. We also see this when Mary Warren arrives to see Proctor, as she claims that there have been thirty-nine women arrested and the number is only growing. This number proves that not many, if any at all, have been able to break free from the injustice of the judicial system. The defendant in 12 Angry Men is a young man who has been accused of murdering his own father on the charge of murder in the first degree. It is stated, “Nine... ten ... eleven... That's eleven for guilty. Okay. Not guilty? (NO. 8's hand is raised.) One. Right. Okay. Eleven to one, guilty.” (Rose 4). At first glance, all the jurors excluding Juror #8, view the boy as guilty. They claim that this is due to the evidence they were presented with, but it is also related to their bias and the fact that they want to go home as early as possible. This can be seen when Juror #7 states, “ Let’s vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go …show more content…
The Crucible is set in a time period where words and non-credible witnesses were the only sources of evidence that the court used to convict the accused. According to John Proctor, “And why not, if they must hang for denyin‘ it? There are them that will swear to anything before they‘ll hang; have you never thought of that?” (Miller 69). In this quote, John explains that the young ladies are most likely pleading guilty to interacting with the devil with the knowledge that if they don’t they will be hung. He states that the women do not have much of a choice. Due to this, we see that not much tangible evidence is used in the courts in Salem. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men is set in a time period where words have to be proven to be true in order for someone to be convicted of a crime. Reginald Rose emphasizes the following scene, “(NO. 8 takes the diagram and sets it up on a chair so that all can see it. NO. 8 looks it over. Several of the jurors get up to see it better.)” (Rose 39). The actions of the jury demonstrate that although they might not care as much as they should for the boy since Juror #8 cares, they are willing to listen. Juror #8 argues the evidence given throughout the trial to prove not guilty with reasonable doubt. This sets both plays a part in the sense that John does not have supporting evidence to prove his ideas while Juror #8