Jesus before Caiphas: the Illegal Trial and Sentence |
Let's present a hypothetical trial situation. You're selected for a jury and seated. In your lap is your notebook and pen because you are determined to be a responsible citizen who listens carefully and judges fairly. (Yes, you are called to judge the facts and conclude whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.)
The prosecutor gets up and gives his opening statement outlining how he will prove the guilt of the defendant in the dock. He presents the case from the prosecution's point of view, of course. Are all the facts accurate? Is the case biased? Is everyone involved in the prosecution honest? That's what you will have to decide.
When the prosecutor finishes, the defense lawyer rises and begins to make his opening statement. However, the judge stops him and tells him to sit down, because the jury doesn't need to hear what he has to say. The lawyer tries to argue and is threatened with contempt of court, so he sits down and shuts up.
The prosecutor begins to call witness after witness to state the case against the accused. Whenever the defense tries to question a witness, he is stopped by the judge and the witness is dismissed. When the prosecution rests and the defendant's lawyer gets up to present his side of the case, the judge once again silences him. He turns to the jury and tells them they have all the information they need to make a decision about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
"But, Your Honor," you say, "we've only heard one side of the case. You haven't let the defendant give his evidence. How can we make a fair decision?"
The judge looks at you in anger.
"If you say one more word, you will be charged with contempt." He then instructs the jury to deliberate where they are after telling them the defendant is clearly guilty.
What do you do?
I presented this as a hypothetical situation, but its been repeated numerous times throughout history. Judge Roland Freisler's kangaroo court trials in Nazi Germany were notorious. Defendants were tortured and humiliated before entering the courtroom. The students of the White Rose movement in Germany who distributed flyers calling for passive resistance were given a show trial and executed. If you haven't seen the film about Sophie Scholl, I recommend it, but it's not for the faint of heart. Here is a clip from the movie showing Freisler questioning Sophie's brother, Hans. The portrait of the fanatical judge is true to life. If you look Freisler up and watch clips from his trials, you hear him screaming at the defendants, calling them names, and refusing to let them speak. He died during an allied bombing raid when a bomb hit the courthouse. A column crushed him and then the entire courthouse roof fell on him. Poetic justice?
Russia's show trials under Stalin were notorious. He purged anyone who disagreed with him or became a threat to his power. It didn't matter if they were friends, Stalin exercised ruthless control.
And, of course, anyone who has seen the film, A Man for All Seasons will remember the scene where the jury is to be excused to deliberate only to be stopped by Cromwell and asked to give their verdict without considering the evidence. None of the jurors consult one another. Their verdict was a foregone conclusion from the start. Give the king what he wants. The foreman rises and pronounces Thomas More guilty.
In this battle for the White House, there's not one man who is a victim. These men, come from the same 'cult', at times as such, they devour one another, make spectacle, divide and profit.
ReplyDeleteThe only victim in this 'charade' are the people of good will, sadly many have fallen weak and allowed to be manipulated, but not all.
In days gone, wrong was wrong, and the ‘just’ man did not deny it. Repented. Today, those who govern the nations, not only violate the laws of justice, but they even deny there is justice.
Ave Maria!