The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Monty Python, The Holy Grail, and the Idea of Due Process
"How do you know she's a witch?"
The idea of due process can be a difficult legal concept for a lot of non-lawyers. But you can get the basic idea from Monty Python's classic movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You just need to watch a single scene, the "she's a witch!" scene, which is here:
You probably remember the scene, at least if you're of a certain age. To recap: The mob has found a witch, and they're very excited to burn her. They come to Bedevere and ask for his permission to do it. Bedevere pauses and asks, "How do you know she's a witch?" The crowd can't come up with a good reason. Bedevere then insists that there are ways of telling if she's a witch, and he leads the mob to a scientific test of that proposition.
The method Bedevere devises is absurd. Witches and wood both burn, the medieval logic goes, so witches must be made of wood. And wood and ducks both float, so if she weighs the same as a duck, she must be a witch! They get a big scale and weigh her and a duck; the scale being even proves she's a witch. It's all exceedingly silly, of course. But it impresses a watching King Arthur, who knights Bedevere and invites him to join the Round Table.
At one level, the scene is a hilarious spoof of the bizarre ways they tried to identify who was a witch in medieval England. Those methods weren't all that different from weighing the accused against a duck. In particular, the scene echoes the medieval practice of swimming a witch, where they would submerge a suspected witch under water to see if they sunk to the bottom or floated. (Innocent people would sink to the bottom, but witches would float above the water, they thought.)
But more importantly, the scene is also about due process. The mob is positive the woman is a witch. Bedevere asks the key question, but how do you know she is one? The crowd first invokes the fake nose and the hat they put on her to make her look like a witch. Bedevere is unimpressed. He then introduces the basic idea of due process: Before taking the action of burning the woman as a witch, there should be a process for developing and evaluating evidence that she is one.
The absurdity of the process Bedevere proposes makes the same point. In the unenlightened medieval times, the script writers are telling us, they didn't understand how to test what is true. The process Bedevere came up with was silly. It had no ability to help a fact finder discover if she was a witch or not. And it seems to have been fixed, too, with the woman clearly not weighing the same as a duck but the two coming out the same weight. The accused even breaks the fourth wall and speaks directly to the camera about it. She sarcastically comments: "It's a fair cop," British slang for "that's a fair process; yeah, you got me." Of course, it was not a fair process at all. It was a process, but not a fair one.
The lawyerly idea of due process, it seems to me, is all about Bedevere stopping the crowd and asking how they know she's a witch. And then it's a matter of figuring out what procedures should be in place to tell if the crowd's belief is true. (Of course, they're stacking the deck because we know today that witches don't exist in the first place. But it's only a model, er, a movie.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Orin, are you arguing that it's important to give the accused trials that with hindsight and knowledge we see are ludicrous and a farce? In the end we drowned the woman, but she got a tortured trial and more harassment along with it.
Remember the scene
How do you know
- she turned me into a newt
- I got better
Which was probably a comment on the so-called reliability of human testimony.
Cogent analogy, Professor!
The witch was not being sarcastic. The process worked, and Belvedere outed her fair and square. That idea that such a rediculous process worked is part of the joke.
Monty Python’s Flying Circus uses the line “It’s a fair cop” several times in the repertoire - in the Argument Clinic and the Chirch Police sketches, for example. And in each case, the process is really bizarre, yet the accused is in fact guilty. There are certain running gags that are used consistently in Monty Python, and this is one of them. It’s meant the same way here.
I rise to concur with ReaderY. The absurdity of the situation is that the silly process created by Belvedere returned the correct outcome. The woman indeed weighed as much as a duck, was therefore made of wood, and was indeed a witch! And to dispel any doubt, the witch confessed. Perhaps not the best analogy to make your point, Dr. Kerr.
Same here. That was the ultimate joke, that all that stupid humorous "science" actually did the job accurately and correctly. Sudden twists for comedy!
“Did the job accurately and correctly” — if you completely ignore epistemology, maybe? Otherwise, absolutely not! Kinda of the entire point of Orin’s post.
Geeze. In the context of the movie, in which killer rabbits tore out people's throats, a magical bridge would fling you into an abyss if you failed to correctly answer any question, it was accurate epistemology.
Even if she did end up being a witch, that does not make the epistemology accurate. Unless of course we're going further argue over a bunch of assumptions such as whether the wood-duck-witch weight is actually a feature of the world in Monty Python, etc.
They did cover in your freshmen philosophy intro that it's possible to hold a belief that ends up being true but for false reasons, yes?
This new learning amazes me, ReaderY. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Yup. Sorry, but I'm with Y on this. The cherry on top of this skit was that she got the due process, justice was served . . . but in the end, she WAS a witch. This giant woman (giant-sized relative to the size of the duck, that is) ended up weighing the same as the duck. Therefore, made of wood. Balsa, or some other super-light wood, I reckon. Made of wood = witch.
Her, "It's a fair cop." statement was not sarcasm; it was a straightforward, rueful, admission, as the phrase was similarly used in several MP (and Now for Something CD) episode skits.
Made of wood = floats, and therefore?
A witch!!!
What process is due must be independent of actual guilt or innocence, or else things get subjective real fast. As recent Admin ‘trust us’ arguments demonstrate.
I agree.
Although in Argument Clinic, the fair cop was that Monty Python was ending every bleedin' sketch by having a police officer come in to call a stop to silliness (as explained, of course, by a police officer who came in to call a stop to the silliness, and realized the irony most of the way through his statement).
Yes- in Monte Python "a fair cop" was not used sarcastically. It was an admission of guilt. Merriam-Webster defines it as such too, although the Urban Dictionary's definition is better: "Best used when defeated by medieval logic involving ducks."
I don't know the origin of this phrase, but I am reasonably sure they didn't invent it. It was popular slang at the time.
The phrase was popularized by the novel Raffles by E. W. Horning in 1898. It’s discussed by George Orwell in his essay “Raffles and Miss Blandish.” It epitomizes the sense of fairness of its lead character, A.J. Raffles, the gentleman bandit. Orwell depicts the deterioration of British fiction about criminals - the mobsters in No Orchids for Miss Blandish are a bunch of sadistic thugs and the rape scenes are discrihed with frankness that was shocking for the time - as representing the unfortunate effects of the Americanization of British culture.
I’ve seen the movie numerous times and never caught this before, thank you.
Another example is Crunchy Frog. Although there, it’s the suspect who’s being bizarre, and Inspector Praline’s role is pretty much straight. But nonetheless, Mr. Milton of the Whizzo Chocolate Company is in fact obviously guilty. It really was a fair cop.
Exactly, I was going to comment that myself. The joke is that she WAS a witch, which is exactly WHY she weighed the same as the duck.
I do not believe this is an accurate interpretation of the scene. I'm not sure Orin's interpretation is correct either. She was neither confessing nor being sarcastic. IMO she was saying, "Well, the process said I'm a witch, so it's fair to burn me."
And now we have at least one member of the Supreme Court who was not flummoxed about determining whether the woman was a witch, but by the more basic what is a woman?
If we're going to discuss silly questions that everyone should already know the answer to, yet pretend it's complicated to answer.
I really would like an updated Python sketch conducting a trial asking "how do you know she's a woman?" You know the one woman who does not float in water? Natalie Wood
Would you settle for a backdated one?
Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: I want to be one.
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me "Loretta."
Reg: What?
Stan: It's my right as a man.
The important takeaway is that the accused witch in Monty Python received "due process." It was a silly process, a stupid one, an archaic one, and one almost certain to lead to incorrect and absurd results.
However, she received the process which was due her. Many commentators would disagree and think that because she did not have a certain ideal of a fair process that she did not have due process. That misconstrues the idea which is all the rage lately.
Sooo....The lawyerly idea of due process is all about stopping the crowd and asking how they know she's a witch, and then devising lot of pointless silly tests that have no bearing on witchdom? Because thats what I got from this analogy. Or should I have concluded that due process, like witchdom, does not exist so all the tests are silly?
It's comedy, forcing logic, such as it is, to justify the evidence of an age old stain on humanity, witch accusations.
Baby steps
Due process is a stain on humanity?! What?!
Still if you go to the facts
ABOUT SALEM
what took place in 1692 could not really be said to be a battle between religion and science for one simple reason…most of the leading churchmen involved in the witch trials were also men of science. In fact they were some of the leading scientists of their day.
This is the Libertarian blind spot.
So in Bostock and Obergefell we see the real enemy
Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.” WASHINGTON
But on Reason it is pure indulgence !!! DId not the Supreme Court under milquetoast Roberts say of Masterpiece Cake's handling by Colorado :
" the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
"
I always took 'it's a fair cop' to be less an admission of guilt and more an acceptance of the social expectations that this was indeed the process that was due.
There was no actual evidence the lady was a witch.
The witness claiming she turned him into a newt would be actual evidence, albeit not credible evidence.
Just because he got better doesn't mean she didn't turn him into a newt.
"Fair cop" is about getting caught for doing something wrong. It's "fair" as "correct," not as "even-handed."
Yeah - the character thinks it's fair.
That doesn't mean it was.
"Cop" in this sense means "take" or "grab," and, by extension, "arrest." I think it is only coincidentally related to "cop" short for "copper", i.e. police officer.
I can only think of two other times "cop" is used this way in modern English: "cop a plea" and "cop a feel".
Curious if there are any other examples.
Not a bit coincidental. Police got called "cops" because they would "cop", or arrest people.
Maybe so -- I had always been told that it was short for copper as in a copper badge, not one who cops, but Google seems to disagree.
I thought COP was an acronym for constable on patrol.
Pretty sure that's just a folk etymology.
In the context of the movie it actually was fair, because it was a scientific process that legitimately arrived at the truth. Which was what made it so funny.
This blog’s audience has devolved so rapidly that it appears they’re really struggling to understand basic logic principles, and a good portion seems to believe the witch-finding process in Monty Python was accurate.
Strange days.
This struck me as well. The tortured "logic" is intended as humor; it's hard to conceive of any living person thinking the process was accurate.
But I suppose their point is that it doesn't matter if the process was accurate, as long as the person was guilty. Or one thinks they were.
See the discussions re the Garcia case, where "but but but he's guilty" is the main thrust of one side's argument.
More on "fair cop" - in the old days, police would sometimes "verbal" the accused, that is, state during the trial that the defendant had made certain inculpatory statements, and specifically would say that the accused, when arrested, had said, "it's a fair cop". This practice was sufficiently well known that if ever a policeman said that the defendant had said., it's a fair cop, everyone in the know would assume that the defendant had been verballed.
Why is there so much obsession with due process?
Where was Laken Riley's due process?
Where was AJ Wise's due process?
The state of Colorado has it right.
No courts or judges needed, a sheriff's judgment is good enough!
https://reason.com/2025/04/15/colorado-will-soon-require-a-discretionary-permit-to-acquire-semiautomatic-rifles/
The sheriff "may deny an application" if he "has reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will pose a danger to [himself] or others."
So because a murder victim didn't get a trial, the person accused of murder shouldn't get one?
Due process involves using a fair procedure before the deprivation of rights. Determining what procedures are necessary and helpful has been an effort of a millennium. Other free nations disagree with us on what is necessary.
The scene starts with a mob taking an alleged witch to a government official to authorize her punishment. This provides some degree of "due process of law" instead of letting a biased and arbitrary mob take the law into their own hands.
The future knight uses science as a neutral principle to provide a fair process. The accused is tested and found guilty under the mistaken logic applied. The silliness of the logic adds to the humor.
The process applied even in this fashion would have provided some value in the days of King Arthur. In some cases, a mob just dressing up someone like that, etc., would be determined to be unjust. The use of a neutral arbitrator and due process would help.
Due process sets up procedures to try to obtain the best result. For instance, we entrust the judgment of juries to weigh evidence. We have redundancies, including appellate review and executive clemency. Mistakes can be flagged.
The humor is again significantly based on the silly science applied. Nonetheless, over the years, courts have applied bad science.
Efforts are made to set forth standards to avoid this, but they are only so successful. Bad science has led to long prison sentences and even death sentences. Again, it is hoped that various checks are in place to help catch and temper the results of these problems.
"Due process involves using a fair procedure before the deprivation of rights."
I don't believe that is correct. Nothing about Due Process says it has to be fair, only that it needs to be a standard set of hoops that has been codified.
For example, due process may require the The Man first get a grand jury inditement before they can try you for murder. Does anyone believe that grand jury trials are "fair"? If they were, one would think that we wouldn't have a common colloquial expression about indicting a ham sandwich.
The problem I have the witch analogy is that it isn't an already set and standardized process (he seems to make up the rules as he goes), rather than that it isn't a fair process.
The word "fair" means "conforming with normal rules" or "marked with impartiality." That's what due process entails.
"Fair" is a limited thing. It includes following the rules. The game might be unjust. If the rules are followed, it is still fair.
Does anyone believe that grand jury trials are "fair"? If they were, one would think that we wouldn't have a common colloquial expression about indicting a ham sandwich.
The saying is an exaggeration of the lower standard necessary to indict people. It still is an additional safeguard put in place before the government can even bring a case to trial.
Grand juries must follow standard rules, including not having discrimination by race. They must be legally fair.
The problem I have the witch analogy is that it isn't an already set and standardized process (he seems to make up the rules as he goes), rather than that it isn't a fair process.
The problem was the lack of adequate scientific knowledge. The same thing arises with relying on the size of a person's head or bad expert witness testimony. The process can be fair, but bad evidence (garbage in/garbage out) can result in unjust outcomes.
Looks like the "She was attacking me with a Banana!" defense worked for Michael Byrd, except Ashli Babbit didn't even have a Banana.
The clip could also be viewed as a satire of expert witnesses. Nowadays, someone with a PhD in witch detection would testify that witches float, and that has been scientifically proven and confirmed by numerous experts in the New England Journal of Anti-Witchery. There would be a Daubert hearing, where the witness would be qualified, and testimony allowed.
Agreed. I think the point was to make fun of "due process" if anything. The issue being that what is considered fair and reasonable at time t, may not be considered fair and reasonable at t+n.
How many prisoners have later been exonerated, despite "due process"?
Surprised Dr. Ed hasn't brought up the Leo Spaceman, MD process for verifying sexual harassment claims: dunking the woman under water until she admits she made it all up. Different world, the '60s.
"it's a matter of figuring out what procedures should be in place to tell if the crowd's belief is true" -- but procedures must be fixed by written law _before_ someone is accused. Otherwise, it's easy to jury-rig procedures to ensure a predetermined result.
In my (lay) understanding, due process requires (1) written rules of what people must/must not do; (2) written rules for the procedure used to determine whether rules were broken; (3) independent decisionmakers. So, for example, a "law" that gives presidents (or their appointees) unreviewable discretion to deport anyone they declare a hindrance to "U.S. foreign policy" is rule-of-royal-whim, not rule-of-law.
Now do Theodoric of York, Medieval Judge (SNL, S4 E4, 1978):
Mother [Jane Curtin] : Why don't you just admit it!? You don't know what you're doing! And who are you to interpret God's will!? ..
Theodoric of York [Steve Martin]: Well,the King. It's the law.
Mother: Well, the law's wrong. It should be changed. ...
Theodoric of York: Wait a minute perhaps she's right. Maybe the King doesnt have a monopoly on the truth. Maybe he should be judged by his peers. Oh! A jury! A jury of his peers. Of six good men! No wait! Eight good men! No!! Ten good men!! No, thats not enough. 18 good men!! No, thats TOO MANY. Lets see ..11 good men! Wait! 13 good men! No! 11, 13, 11, 13 - it doesn't matter. Okay. But everyone should be tried by a jury of their peers and be equal before the law. And perhaps, every person should be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
[Theodoric takes a brief pause.]
Theodoric of York: Nah!!
Just look at the cast for this sketch. Wow.
Theodoric of York…..Steve Martin
Witch…..Laraine Newman
Broom Gilda…..Gilda Radner
Townsman…..Brian Doyle-Murray
Townswoman…..Anne Beatts
Announcer…..Don Pardo
Reeve…..Dan Aykroyd
Guard #1…..Tom Davis
Guard #2…..Al Franken
Simpkin of Partridge…..Bill Murray
John the Tanner…..John Belushi
Witch's Mother…..Jane Curtin
https://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78dyork.phtml