The Crucible Act III represents a logical fallacy through the dialogue of Judge Danforth

During Act III Judge Danforth's dialogue represents a fallacy, or an argument that appears logical though it is based on a completely false premise. Through his dialogue he brings up certain points at which he makes good contact of contradicting himself. "Witchcraft is an invisible crime.", how is it possible to make such a statement when clearly there are people accusing others of a crime? So called "afflicted" girls follow through with potraying a scene of affliction supposively carried out by the accused witch. The charge of witchcraft being an invisible crime is not accurate in this case. If the harm done by a witch is present to an afflicted person how is it noted to an "invisible" crime? "The witch won't accuse themselves.", certainly not unless you have a court that reflects, regards, and surrounds themselves based upon terms of a confession or suffer the consequences of being hanged. If those accused do follow through with a confession they would only serve jailtime. Therefore, of course, no one is eager to confess unless they are willing to risk their lives. Judge Danforth made an excellent job of contradicing himself with his fallacy in the dialogue noted in Act III.