Trust in the Press Essay Example for Free

Trust in the Press Essay Trust in the Press is essential in an ever changing society. Not only must the Press be trusted but it must be believed and must behave in an ethical manner. But what constitutes an ethical manner? Laws might be set to achieve certain outcomes and may not necessarily be ethical. What is legal and demanded by law may not be considered ethical from a journalistic point of view. With respect to your personal point of view of the above, discuss what you believe journalists have to do to maintain the trust and respect of the public. The historian Thomas Babington Macaulay introduced the notion of the media as the Fourth Estate; the role of a watchdog that checks on abuses of power by government and professionals.1 Lord Hutchinson, QC defence council for the ABC Case regarding the Official Secrets Act 1989, said it is the task of the press to examine, probe, question and find out if there are mistakes to embarrass the government.2 With such a role of responsibility, it is vital that the public trust what the press tell them. Codes and laws are in place to make sure journalists act as a collective conscience.3 In practice this is difficult as individual consciences come into play, along with the obstacles of time, money and competition that face journalists in their profession. One common rule among journalists is to never reveal your sources. If you do, your career will be tainted with mistrust. This journalistic ethical code secures a relationship with the public and provides protection. But there are laws that contravene this. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 says courts have the right to demand that journalists reveal their source if disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says police investigating a serious offence can obtain an order requiring the journalist to submit evidence considered useful to the court. It is difficult to defy the law, especially when the consequence could be imprisonment or a fine. However, I would still try to keep my sources confidential; otherwise they could face a fine or imprisonment. I would find that difficult to live with because I am just as responsible for protecting my sources and for imparting the information. In these circumstances I would argue for freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. Trainee journalist Bill Goodwin appealed successfully with this argument after he was fined for refusing to hand over documents concerning engineering company Terra Ltd. In another case the Guardian exposed their source Sarah Tisdall in 1984 under pressure from the courts. She leaked information about the delivery of cruise missiles to RAF Greenham Common and was jailed as a consequence.4 Where a source has taken the initiative and given a story to the press, especially in matters relating to national security, they must have recognised the risk and it is not unreasonable for them to take the consequences. There are legal reporting restrictions that a journalist can overturn. Section 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 can be lifted if a juvenile has committed a serious crime and naming them would act as a deterrent to others. Journalists often cite public interest in their reasons for disagreeing with the law and this is an ethical way to maintain the trust and respect of the public. Yet the problem lies in defining public interest. The Press Complaints Commission states that public interest includes: 1. Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour 2. Protecting public health and safety 3. Preventing the public being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation5 Reporter Ryan Perry went undercover in 2003 as a footman at Buckingham Palace in order to observe their security methods. His report in the Daily Mirror highlighted the need for tightened security and this was achieved. His behaviour, although deceitful, was for the publics safety and I agree with German journalist Gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½nter Wallraff who said, you have to disguise yourself in order to unmask your society.6 The BBC reiterates this in their guidelines for public interest: when dealing with serious illegal or anti-social behaviour it may occasionally be acceptable for us not to reveal the full purpose of the programme to a contributor.7 This is when the ethical behaviour of a journalist starts to depart from the ethical code of the public and indeed the law. I would find it difficult to lie in order to get a story but if it was for the publics benefit, I could do it. I do not think behaving this way, if it revealed vital information, could lose the respect or trust of the public. If the person I was exposing was a family member or boyfriend, I could not report on the story. I would not cover up their crime but similarly, I would not offer them up for public scrutiny. Ethical manner as a journalist is different to ethical manner as a daughter or girlfriend and in this case the personal is stronger than the professional. I do not think Perrys report on Buckingham Palace should have included photographs of private bedrooms and details on the storage of breakfast cereals. This does not come under the Press Complaints Commission code of public interest and I do not think it can be justified as ethical behaviour. Undercover work cannot be held up as ethical when the outcome is less important than the act and Perrys inclusion of these private details undermine the ethical reasons for reporting undercover. When it becomes a matter of what the public are interested in, rather than what they need to know, ethical manners begin to vary between journalists and other factors come into the equation. The media is to a certain extent controlled by the people who own the newspapers, radio stations and television companies. They pay the journalists salary and they ultimately make the decisions. A senior executive of News International said: If an editor went to Murdoch and said that he had carefully examined the PCC code of conduct on chequebook journalism and had come to the conclusion that to pay to get a story would be a breach of the code and, therefore, he hadnt done it, he would be fired.8 This shows that a journalists so-called ethical behaviour is not always their own. However the journalist can decide who they work for. If I was asked to pay for stories that revealed matters that I did not consider of public interest, then I would refuse and work for a different organisation. This is, of course easier said than done and when one organisation is willing to pay for a story, others follow suit to keep up with competition. The public are aware of this and join in the game. Neighbours of Shannon Matthews have begun to charge for their stories, and they know the media will pay. It is difficult not to succumb to this method of journalism when competition is so fierce but then motivation for talking to the press becomes about money rather than truth. The competition and pressure to get a good story causes some journalists to fabricate, especially in the television industry. Regulators Ofcom demonstrated the penalty of misleading the public when they fined ITV à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½5.675 million for phone vote scandals. Journalist Max Hastings said deceit is woven into the very nature of television. He described how some camera crews in war zones have encouraged soldiers to open fire so they can film dramatic footage that was missed when it actually happened.9 I understand the desire to produce a captivating documentary but asking soldiers to potentially put themselves and others in danger for dramatic effect, is not ethical behaviour. In television there is a fine line between deceiving the public and assuming they know about the editing tricks of the trade. Filming a sequence over a three-day period but presenting it as one day is not harmful deception but the reality of television production. The BBCs broadcast in 2007 of the Queen storming out of a portrait session was deceiving because editing gave a false representation of the actual events. Ofcom hold a similar view in regard to fairness. They say broadcasters should take reasonable care that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation.10 When covering a story about parishioners protesting against their church being demolished, I was told by my editor to ask them to shout save our church for the camera. They did this and it brightened up the news package. It could be argued that this was unethical behaviour because it misled the public about the protest; as soon as I had gone, the shouting stopped. I did question my actions. However the desire to entertain the viewer, the opinion of my editor, the willingness of the protestors themselves and the low impact it would have on the public perception stopped me going against the decision. This is a minor case but it shows how potential deception in television is an ever-present reality. The need for impartiality is heavily stressed in journalism codes of conduct. Ofcom states that television and radio programmes must exclude all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on matters of political and industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy (unless that person is speaking in a legislative forum or in a court of law).11 To be impartial as a journalist is not as simple as it seems; merely editing requires some personal judgement. As a reporter, it is not that easy to completely remove yourself from a story. Journalist Gill Swain said simply, dont get emotionally involved.12 Yet detach yourself too far and your reporting will get labelled as forensic.13 Sometimes the best journalism happens when you do engage emotionally and follow a story with passion. If Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had not done that, the revelation of Watergate and eventual resignation of US President Richard Nixon in 1974 would have never come about. Personal interest and involvement can be a helpful motive in investigative journalism. A few years ago I wrote about my college boat club in a university magazine. I was told various stories about club money that had gone missing. As a member of that boat club, I felt obliged to find out what had happened and inform university students. After publication the head of the boat club asked me to her office to explain myself. She was unable to deny any of the facts. If I had not had personal involvement in this story, the financial difficulties of the boat club would have not been revealed. Yet the actual writing of the story should be impartial and not convey the opinion of the journalist. The public should trust that you are giving them a fair and accurate report on a matter of importance to them. However, sometimes personal belief and gut instinct that go against codes and ethical manners can benefit the public. During the time Senator Joseph McCarthy made charges that the United States government had been infiltrated by Soviet spies, American journalists had to abide by the strict codes of reporting without analysis or comment. They knew McCarthys claims were false but the journalistic laws meant they were unable to investigate his statements and tell the public the truth. More recently, the Washington Post, New York Times and New Republic all apologised to their readers for not being sceptical when reporting White House claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.14 Part of being a journalist is to face adversity and going against a law or code is sometimes the only way to tell the public the truth, but truth is what ultimately gains their trust and respect. Laws and codes are necessary to provide a benchmark for journalists to work from and maintain professionalism. Without them some journalists would lose sight of what fundamental principles they need to follow in order to behave responsibly. There are times when a journalists own instinct and ethical manner will maintain respect and trust of the public better than the codes. There are also instances when pressure, time and money prevent a journalist from maintaining those codes. Whatever the circumstances, the one rule that should be constant is that journalists are the eyes and ears of the public; their trust and respect should always take precedence. BIBLIOGRAPHY Frost, Chris. Media Ethics And Self-Regulation. Pearson Education Limited, 2000. Harcup, Tony. The Ethical Journalist. Sage Publications Ltd, 2007. Keeble, Richard. Ethics For Journalists. Routledge, 2001. Rosenstiel, Tom and Mitchell, Amy S., ed. Thinking Clearly: Cases in Journalistic Decision-Making. Columbia University Press, 2003. Welsh, Tom, Greenwood, Walter, Banks, David, eds. McNaes Essential Law For Journalists, 19th Edition. Oxford University Press, 2007. Wesbites: http://www.ofcom.org.uk 1 Richard Keeble, Ethics For Journalists (Routledge, 2001) 127. 2 Tom Welsh, Walter Greenwood, David Banks, eds. McNaes Essential Law For Journalists, 19th Edition (Oxford University Press, 2007) 415. 3 Keeble 131. 4 Keeble 29. 5 Tony Harcup, The Ethical Journalist (Sage Publications Ltd, 2007) 36. 6 Harcup 41. 7 Harcup 45. 8 Harcup 112. 9 Harcup 12 10 http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/fairness/ 11 http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/ 12 Keeble 130. 13 Keeble 140. 14 Harcup 17.

Have a Seat :: social issues

Have a Seat Over the years there have been debates and arguments about Capital Punishment. There are all kinds of people that are for it and then there are all kinds of people against it. People that are against it say that it is injustice and cruel. Well those people may be right, but I feel that we should have Capital Punishment in the USA. In today’s courts innocent people do go to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. When they do go to jail, human do like they normally do and make mistakes by putting some guy on death row and then weeks or even years later are executed. Then there is nothing that you can do to take back what you did. If we didn’t have Capital Punishment we would not worry about someone getting killed cause of someone else. Since the constitution says â€Å"that no person shall suffer cruel and unusual punishment†, we would not have to worry about breaking the constitution. It is cheaper for someone to stay in prison for life and not have parole than to kill the person. It takes more of tax payer’s money to go ahead and have someone killed. We should just keep paying for the criminals to stay in prison instead of killing him. If a murderer goes and kills someone then we kill the murderer, then we are at that person’s level. We can be the bigger person and just l et them sit in jail. If we just get rid of Capital Punishment then we would never have to worry about killing an innocent person for something they didn’t do. These are reasons we should get rid of Capital Punishment, because it doesn’t do any good for us. However, if we just sit there and do nothing about the over crowding population then we will have to let some of the criminals go. If we let criminals go they will go back and do the same thing because they know that the jails wouldn’t be able to hold them and they would get released again. Then their crimes will get worst, like instead of stealing a car they take a hostage. Instead of robbing banks they will go out and shoot someone. Criminals are always criminals and you can’t change them. There are a lot of people kidnapping little girls and killing them and what do we do, slap those on the wrist, since we can’t hold them in are jails.

Hawthorne effect Essay

In today’s competitive climate lots of business owners are trying to get more from their workforce at the same time however their employees are trying to get more from their jobs. Reward and recognition programmes are one way that employers can motivate their staff into changing their key behaviors and work habits, thus benefitting the business. At the same time these schemes can also give the employee that little bit extra they are looking for from job. Motivation and reward are closely linked and there have been many credible theories written on the subject. It is widely recognised that human beings have a need to feel valued, both in their home lives and in the work place. To keep people motivated they need to be encouraged, rewarded (where appropriate) or recognised in their endeavors. One of the most valued of the motivation theories was written by Abraham Maslow from the USA back in the 1950’s. As part of his study into motivation Maslow developed a five tiered hierarchy of needs. He argued that the way to motivate individuals in the workplace and indeed in life is to satisfy the need sets one by one and in order. The first of the need sets and the most basic are the biological and physiological needs. These are survival requirements ingrained into us and evolved with mankind for tens of thousands of years, things such as food, shelter, warmth etc. In Maslow’s model it’s these needs that need to be satisfied before anything else, for example there is little point offering status as a motivator, when the individual has not yet satisfied basic requirements such as achieving a livable wage in order to eat, secure shelter etc. Reward Systems Peformance at Mark-it-Down Co Ltd is not what it should be and it has been decided between senior mangement and the Human Resources department that the introduction of a reward scheme is whats required to motivate the workforce and improve performance overall. The team in charge of deciding on the reward system to implement have come up up with the following suggestions: Variable Pay/Bonus Scheme A scheme of variable pay is one possible solution for the supermarket. In this scheme a portion of the employee’s pay would be considered at risk. This portion of the wage will be rewarded according to the performance of the company as a whole, on the basis of personal acheivement or based on the results of a department or team (this would probably be the most effective for this type of commercial business) Targets will be set at the beginning of a specified period (per annum is the common period) at the end of this period depending on the how well the targets have been met, a percentage or full quantity of the â€Å"at risk† part of their pay will be paid to the individual. This payment could take a few different forms, possibly a cash bonus, a quantity of stock or shares in the business. Whilst monetary reward has been proven to be effective and can encourage hard work amongst a team or individually, it has the disadvantage of impacting on profit made by the supermarket, for example if the grocery team meet their target for keeping the produce displays replenished to a defined level, then the whole grocery team will have earnt the bonus which must be paid from the profits. You also may have a situation where part of the workforce become demotivated, if their team or they personally have missed out on a bonus. Bonus and pay based rewards are considered differently depending on which motivation theory you study. For example in Maslows hierachy of needs, financial remuneration is only mentioned within the first tier of the hierachy which covers the most basic and obvious survival needs (physiological needs) Money was not considered by Maslow be a long term motivator. Frederick Herzberg considered financial reward to be amongst his â€Å"hygiene factors† that is that money in itself is not a motivator but actually will only act as a â€Å"dissatisfier† if the individual feels that their financial expectations and requirements of the role are not being met. In contrast to Maslow and Herzberg, John Stacey Adams might have argued that bonus schemes and pay related rewards can indeed be effective motivators. If the individual percieves that they are gettting a fair input to output balance in comparison to their peers eg, works hard (input) for a pay bonus (output) However that motivation through financial reward might not last. If the individual learns that a colleague or peer is benefiting from a better input to output ratio (eg doesn’t work as hard, but gets paid more) then the individual can quickly become dissatisfied. Promotion The introduction of a promotion programme could be a viable option. If the employee’s are aware that there is a realistic opportunity for them to progress within Mark It Down Co then they will likely feel motivated towards improving their standard of work in the hope that they will be one of the employee’s chosen for promotion. Maslow’s heierachy of needs supports promotion as a motivator, however depending on the person promotion/status as a form of motivation might be quite high up on the tiers and as such it would only work if the tiers below have already been satisfied. There could be several downsides to this however; often with promotion comes a rise in salary for the individual, which will of course impact on any profit made by the supermarket. There might also be a risk of a culture developing within the company whereby individuals take the attitude that they are â€Å"out for themselves† Employee of the Month One of the suggested recognition programmes is an employee of the month scheme. The idea is that all employee’s and managers are provided with a brief form to be used to nominate an employee that they believe deserves recognition (they should also explain the reasons behind there nomination) Due to the nominations for employee of the month being business wide not only is the playing field for recognition level, but there is the scope for recognising excellance in all of the different area’s of the organisation. This reward system could be as low or high cost as Mark it Down Co directors see fit. There is support for this type of recognition reward in Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Effect theory. Following his studies of workplace behaviour at the Hawthorne Plant Chicago in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s Mayo deduced that emotional factors acted as far better motivators than economical ones, as such a reward scheme of this nature could be very effective indeed, not to mention low cost. On the downside employee of the mon th schemes can have a tendancy to be considered a little cheesy and may require a little effort on the part of the programme managers in order to keep all of the staff motivated to particiate by completing the nomination slips. Pass on Praise Something as simple as passing on positive comments you have heard about an employee direct to the individual can have an extremely motivational effect. Again the hawthorne effect supports this belief. The praise could passed on by way of email, copying in managers or even with a visit to a senior managers office in order to receive thanks directly. The main advantage of this idea is that it costs nothing and is extremely easy to implement, however it may not be enough on its own, I would suggest that this tactic be used in conjunction with one of the other employee recognition schemes. All of the afore mentioned reward options have the potential to be effective, however the success of the chosen scheme could have a lot to do with the indviduals in nbeed of motivation. For instance in McGregors theory, the two employee types, X and Y differ greatly. What might motivate a Y employee (someone that is naturally happy to take on repsponsibilty and excepts work as part of life) might have the opposite effect on an employee of the X variety (someone that’s avoids repsonsibility and needs to be heavily supervised. The type of employee’s to be motivated should be considered before a motivation and reward scheme is decided upon. Monitoring Performance There are various ways to monitor the performance of your workforce. In the supermarket setting of Mark it Down Co, these could be; Physical: the number of sales made, the number of employee’s served, punctuality or attendance. There can be no disputing these types of performance indicators they are unambiguous and offer a realistic insight into the performance of a team or individual. Qualiative: these indicators are based on opinions and judgements (the view of a supervisor or the such like). These indicators are just as important as physical ones but managers should be careful to ensure that any measures of performance are considered fair by both the employees and employers. Goals and Targets Performance measurement can also be linked to the companies appraisal system, that is performance can be measured by assessing progress made on targets and goals agreed at the previous review. Appraisals are valuable in this respect. In order to effectively monitor performance in this way it is important to ensure that your employees are aware of the difference between target and goal. Goals: These are long term ambitions that should relate to the individual aims for progressing within the company. Targets: These are the steps taken in order to achieve the goal. There is an acronym that can act as a guide for the criteria that any targets should adhere to. They should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound. There is little point setting targets outside of these parameters. Monitoring progress towards identified goals and objectives as a way of determining who deserves reward does have its pros and cons though. On the one hand it can be considered an easily measurable method of monitoring performance, but on the other (particularly when the goals and targets have been set for a team or group) it could be argued that the fact that a company/team or individual is achieving its set goals and targets is not a true indication of who has made the most effort towards making that happen and as such is not an effective method for identifying who should qualify for reward. This is an important thing to consider when applying motivation and reward schemes, as an incorrect or ill managed monitoring technique could be costly to a business. For example a company will not want to be handing out cash bonuses to a whole team for reaching a set goal if it transpires that 3 out of 5 team members have made no improvement to their work output and had nothing to do with the team’s progress or achievement! When considering target setting as a way of monitoring progress and establishing where reward, praise or recognition should be given, serious thought should be given to how the company plans on pinpointing exactly who has been responsible for progress, both positive and negative. Benchmarking Another way to monitor company performance is to measure its successes and failures against those of other businesses in the same market. For example Mark it Down Co could measure its sales figures against one of its competitors, Lidl for instance. This method is known as bench marking and it’s all about taking the best practices of the highest achieving businesses in the same market and applying them back in the business in question. Job Evaluation Its has been brought to management attention that one of the employee’s at Mark it Down Co believes that he is receiving less salary for the same work as one of his peers. The following two methods can be used to evaluate the jobs of the individuals in question in order to assess whether theses concerns are justified or not. Job Ranking Job ranking is one of the simplest methods of job evaluation. Its considers the job as a whole and ranks it against another whole job within the organisation. This is usually carried out by the raters comparing the jobs using their general knowledge of the roles themselves. The jobs are ranked in order of the difficulty of the job itself or the importance of the role to the company. The procedure is followed for each department and then a comparison of jobs at all levels is made and jobs are given grade levels which define salary groups. The job ranking method is easily understood by all employees and simple to administer, however it does have its disadvantages, this technique is not really suitable for large organisations with complex structures where its is much harder to gain familiarity with all of the job roles. With this in mind it is probably not the solution that should be used at Mark it Down Co Ltd. Point Factor Method The point factor method establishes job values by assigning points to each area within a group of defined factors, below are some examples but there any many different factors that could be defined further and given points in order to be used for job evaluation; Skill: Within this group there might be points available for, experience or training. Effort: The points available for effort might be divided between mental and physical effort. In this method each job is rated using the defined points system. The points are totaled to form the final score for that particular role. From there jobs are grouped into salary grades (jobs with similar points ratings would be placed together in the same salary grade) This method can be tailored to meet the needs of specific companies and is suitable for use within larger organisations where there are a large number of jobs to evaluate. It’s an easy model to work with once it’s in place but can be very expensive and time consuming to develop in the first instance. In my opinion the point factor method would be a the better job evaluation model to use for Mark it Down Co. Job ranking is just too simplistic to cope with the amount of individuals roles at this organisation. The factors I think should be used to develop the point system are as follows; Skill – Experience, Training, Ability, Education Responsibilities – Monetary, Supervisory, Reporting Effort – Mental, Physical Environment – Job Location, Hazard’s In order to establish if the employee in question has a case for querying the wage he is on in comparison to his colleague. His overall score for the above factors should be calculated in order to establish his pay bracket. If the pay grade is the same as that of his colleague then his concerns are justified and his wage should be brought into line. If it is not and he is in a lower wage group then there is no case for a wage increase. Equally if the individuals wage bracket is determined to be higher than that of his colleagues then his wage should be adjusted to reflect as much.

Hysteria In The Crucible - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1716 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/06/24 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: The Crucible Essay Did you like this example? Whenever hysteria occurs, it appears to tolerate the misinterpretation of reality, unspeakable actions and baseless allegations causing societies to break. In the novel The Crucible, Arthur Miller the author of the book, depicts this throughout the story. The Crucible takes place in the Puritan town of Salem, Massachusetts, in the year 1692. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Hysteria In The Crucible" essay for you Create order There are several key settings throughout the story. The entire book is about how an insignificant group of girls create mass hysteria in a small town, and how it impacts hundreds of people. The story begins when a group of girls dance in the woods with a black slave named Tituba. While they dance, they are discovered by Reverend Parris, the local minister of Salem. Betty, Parris daughter, fall unconscious on the ground when she sees him. Soon people gather up in Parris home while rumors about witchcraft go around the town. Everything and everyone in Salem simply belongs to God or to the devil; argument is not merely illegal, it is linked with satanic activity. This contrast functions as the underlying logic of why the witch trials take place. Hysteria plays an important role in the town of Salem through power of manipulation and fear which is evident in the decisions of those who accuse, those who are accused and those who judge them. Back in history, women usually stayed at home, cleaned the house and cooked and sewed. They didnt go out to work as often and many girls didnt even get to go to school. Men were considered to be much more important than women, white people were considered of high status than any other race and the wealthy had more position and power than the poor. The Crucible portrays these divisions, and privileges that certain characters have over the other and how they accuse and manipulate people to their own advantage. Firstly, when Parris say, Such a Christian that will not come to church but once in a month!(Miller 84) or Hers come to overthrow this court, Your Honour(Miller 85). He is unhesitant to blame people that didnt like him, and tries to win favour in the town by being a kiss-up to the judges. Also, in his desperate attempt to protect his reputation, he conveniently hid the fact that Abigail Williams had been caught casting spells in the forest. As Miller says,the paranoid, real or pretended, always secretes its pearl around a grain of fact. Blinded by keeping their public reputation, the people of Salem fear that the sins of their friends, family and their close ones will taint their names. Furthermore, Mrs. Putnams believes, If Jacobs hangs for a witch he forfeit up his propertykilling neighbors for their land(Miller 89). She was too obsessed on blaming other people for the death of her children. She had already turned to witchcraft to find out who murdered her children and without a th ought she jumped on the accusation bandwagon. As Miller says, Not everybody was accused, after all, so there must be some reason why you were. Thomas caused his daughter to cry out against people whose land he wanted to acquire when they were imprisoned. This shows that hysteria only thrives because people benefit from it. Likewise, there is Abigail Williams who accuses Mary Warren,But God made my face; you cannot want to tear my face. Envy is a deadly sin, Mary(Miller 106). When people are inclined to die for a justification, unfortunately theyre often willing to kill for that same justification. In The Crucible, the belief that witchcraft was a manifestation of Satans presence in their town caused them, in their religious vehemence, to eradicate or kill any indications of witchcraft that was thought to be against god. As Weales says, A mood of mass hysteria in which guilt and confession become public virtues. Abby realizes the power of hysteria and uses the situation to accuse Mary Warren of witchcraft and have her sent to jail. This was significant because if someone was accused and denied the accusations, they were immediately hung, but if one confessed, all they did was muddy their names and not stay true to their faith. Consequently, the people of Salem accept and become active in the hysterical climate not only out of sincere religious holiness or devotion but also because it gives them an opportunity to express repressed sentiments and resentments. Hysteria also plays out in destroying several innocent peoplers lives, mainly because the people of Salem committed ridiculously irrational acts guided by their suppressed emotions, for instance rage and greed or out of utter oafishness. This shows how easy it is for people to accuse one another without any hard evidence due to the fickle nature of the court in town. This is best illustrated through Giles Corey when he said, It discomfits me! Last night mark this I tried and tried and could not say my prayers. And then she close her book and walks out of the house, and suddenly mark this I could pray again!(Miller 38). Later in the story his wife is being accused of cursing the pigs and reading fortunes and when asked the name of the accuser, they say it was Giles who accused her own wife. When she is arrested, he regrets talking about the books and tells the court that he only said she read them, not that she was into witchcraft. But it was already too late. In the same way, Elizabeth, John Proctorrs wife was accused by Abigail Williams who wanted to get rid of his wife so they can be together. But John realizes his sins and confesses to the court of Adultery and the only reason why Abigail is accusing his wife is that she wants to replace her, as John announces, But it is a whorers vengeance(102). As Ditsky observes, The case of Abigail involves moral choice in spite of enlightenment of sorts of the side of wrong by this partner in John Proctorrs love affair. When Elizabeth finds out that Abigail is the one who accused her, she immediately tells John that Abigail is taking a big chance in accusing her, since Elizabeth is a farmerrs wife with some status. But little did she know that Abigail is gambling it all to go after John. Consequently, John tries to convince Mary Warren to testify against her, but Abigail, through her manipulative ability shifts the accusation back onto Mary. In a foolish attempt to save herself, Mary charges John that he forced her to do by saying,He come at me by night and every day to sign, to sign, to-(Miller 121). In brief, the unrelenting desire to want more and own more generated an environment that vitalized falsehood, deception and manipulation among neighbours. This draws the extreme lengths the characters are willing to go to and the innocent lives they are ready to destroy just to have the thing they desire leads to the witch trials. Many characters struggle with judgement before and after the events in the story, trying to figure out if the outcomes of their actions are just or not. Making a judgement on somebody may seem harmless and inconspicuous, but it can be catastrophic. The Crucible outlines this through peoplers poor judgement that led to mass hysteria and calamity in the town of Salem. Take for example Danforth who said, Do you know Mr. Proctor, that the entire contention of the state in these trials is that the voice of Haven is speaking through the children?(82). Danforth has already decided that the girls are innocent and are speaking truthfully, that God is speaking through them, and so anyone they accuse must automatically be guilty. This is clearly the kind of bias that prevents people from getting fair trials and assigns an absurd amount of power to the undeserving. As Miller says, the plot justified the crushing of all nuance, all the shading that a realistic judgement of reality requires. Danforthrs Judgement, which he is always very single-minded and strict about, is obviously wrong: Elizabeth, Martha Corey, Rebecca Nurse are not witches at all. Danforth cant change his mind, even after all the evidence, reasoning and rationale points him towards being wrong. Danforth mindlessly believes that a reliable judge must never reconsider his stance. In contrast, there is Hale who confronts, Excellency, I have signed seventy-two death warrants; I am a minister of the Lord, and I dare not take a life without there be a proof so immaculate no slightest qualm of conscience may doubt it(Miller 92). As the story goes on, his motive starts to change. When faced with the truth, he is unsure about accepting his mistake, probably because he never imagined the idea of the accusers being wrong. If this was the case, then all the death warrants he has signed where a mistake, resulting in the innocent deaths being placed on his shoulders. Also, confessing his sins would automatically destroy his reputation as well as publicrs trust. Lastly, Hathorne with a mystical tone, says: God be praised! It is a providence! He rushes out the door, and his voice is heard calling down the corridor, He will confess! Proctor will confess!(127). As time, the executions go by, Danforth and Hathorne stay convicted of the authority and truth of the court. Hathor ne becomes extremely joyful when John Proctor is ready to falsely confess to witchcraft. Hathorne regrets nothing. As a result, hysteria overrides logic and allows people to believe that their neighbours, whom they have always considered honest and upright people, are committing ridiculous and far-fetched crimes namely interacting with the devil, killing babies, and so on. In conclusion, hysteria plays a major role in bringing unreasonable acts to the people of Salem. There is no room for deviation from social norms, as anyone whose private life is not in accordance with established moral laws poses a threat not only to the public good but also to God and his religion. This creates an environment in which people act on their grievance and resentments, which is illustrated by many characters throughout the story, as they eventually destroy each other in the process. Hysteria is displayed by societies all over the world. It is a crucial aspect in establishing and, in particular, breaking relationships.