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.
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!
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!!!
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.
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