NationStates Jolt Archive

August, 23 was the 80th anniversary of the execution of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

What do you think about their case? Were they innocent or guilty? Did they receive a fair trial or an unfair one?

80th Anniversary.

Looking at the poll options is odd. "Innocent BUT fair trial"? If they were executed while innocent, how on earth can the trial have been fair?

Looking at the poll options is odd. "Innocent BUT fair trial"? If they were executed while innocent, how on earth can the trial have been fair?

A fair trial could still come to the wrong conclusion due to lack of evidence.

Looking at the poll options is odd. "Innocent BUT fair trial"? If they were executed while innocent, how on earth can the trial have been fair?
Plenty of people are wrongly convicted in 'fair' trials.

August, 23 was the 80th anniversary of the execution of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

What do you think about their case? Were they innocent or guilty? Did they receive a fair trial or an unfair one?

A definite case of Kangaroo Justice.

http://recollections.nma.gov.au/ejournal_library/images/vol_2_no_1/dov_fedlers_kangaroo_cartoon/files/17527/Dov%20Fedler%20kangaroo%20cartoon%20Web.jpg

no idea and blatantly unfair trial

...wait, who?

There's little doubt that Sacco was as guilty as sin, and that Vanzetti was merely chainganged along to the executioner, simply because of his association with Sacco. As to the trial itself, the conduct was questionable, as the judge failed in his basic duties to serve a dispassionate medium between the prosecution and the defense, and to oversee the smooth operation of a fair trial.

Plenty of people are wrongly convicted in 'fair' trials.

Exactly what I meant. Also, judiciary errors can happen even in bona fide.

80th Anniversary.

I think that, by bolding "80", you mean: "this case is long closed, let it fall".

As for Sacco and Vanzetti as people, you're right: the story of their trial is history now, and further debate about the S&V case is generally futile.

It is not futile, however, to discuss how justice is given and how trials are held throughout history: Hannah Arendt would say that without memory one is bound to make the same errors over and over again.

So, keeping in our minds that the prejudices there were at the times of Sacco and Vanzetti against anarchists and italians are quite similar to many other prejudices there are today against other groups (muslims and arabs come easily to my mind), maybe there is a lesson we could learn by pondering the S&V case again.

if objectivity is beyond human capacity then no trial is capable of being fair.

i'm not REAL familiar with THAT case.
all sorts of people get accused and sometimes convicted of all sorts of things.
sometimes the're guilty and sometimes the're not.

there's just no such thing as a foolproof system of criminal justice.

those are the things i'm reasonably certain of.
prejudices of all kinds tend to throw justice in cocked hat too.

so i don't know what the odds are they could have gotten a fair trial.
probably not real wonderful.

bleh, i'm just rambling and speculating. specificly i haven't the slightest idea about either the fairness or lack of it of their trial, nor the degree or lack of it of their guilt.

i think the rosenbergs died for the sins of idiological prejudice of others,
but that may be unrelated.

=^^=
.../\...

In a ballistics test, the gun found with them was the same gun used in the shooting
However the test was'nt developed until long after the trial
So unfair trial : right verdict

In a ballistics test, the gun found with them was the same gun used in the shooting
However the test was'nt developed until long after the trial
So unfair trial : right verdict

That test was 50 years later, after years of corrosion and disrepair, based on the preconceived notions that Sacco was guilty. This is hardly something that constitutes "beyond reasonable doubt".

That test was 50 years later, after years of corrosion and disrepair, based on the preconceived notions that Sacco was guilty. This is hardly something that constitutes "beyond reasonable doubt".

Other relevant evidence would include the caliber match, and the direct match of the casings found on the scene to casings fired in later tests.

Furthermore, corrosion of firearms with age is not a given, especially if either well maintained or stored in a cool, dry place.

Am I the only one who has no idea what's going on in this thread?

Other relevant evidence would include the caliber match, and the direct match of the casings found on the scene to casings fired in later tests.

Furthermore, corrosion of firearms with age is not a given, especially if either well maintained or stored in a cool, dry place.

Given the coloring of racism and political oppression that infected that trial, there is still no reason to believe that the murder weapon was the same as Sacco's. The trial was flawed as hell, and regardless of later anecdotes of Sacco's "admissions" of guilt, what we have still does not go beyond reasonable dooubt. Even after that, Vanzetti was killed bascially for being an Italian anarchist.

Given the coloring of racism and political oppression that infected that trial, there is still no reason to believe that the murder weapon was the same as Sacco's. The trial was flawed as hell, and regardless of later anecdotes of Sacco's "admissions" of guilt, what we have still does not go beyond reasonable dooubt. Even after that, Vanzetti was killed bascially for being an Italian anarchist.

I never denied that the trial was fundamentally flawed, and that there Judge Thayer failed in his duties, and that appeals courts also failed to properly oversee Judge Thayer's ruling. There is substantial evidence that Sacco's Colt Automatic .32 was indeed the murder weapon, and that that evidence was not tampered with. Sacco was entirely guilty. I'm arguing that the evidence points to Sacco's guilt, and that Vanzetti was merely being chainganged along to the executioner.