Prejudice has taken place throughout time even in this country founded on freedom. The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti has remained a controversial point in our history because it illustrates both our prejudices and our freedoms. Our freedoms are illustrated by our legal system in action and our prejudices are illustrated by the actions of people influenced by their prejudices. These people act not in ways consistent with their duties to uphold the laws and freedoms upon which our country was based. They use their positions to advance their prejudice and fears. I found the discussion of nativism is the chapter very compelling. We tend to think of America as the great “melting pot”. We often think of our country as a place where we have welcomed all from their native homelands in times of trouble, such as political persecution and famine. However, it is apparent from the story that economic times can dictate the welcoming attitude of Americans toward immigrant groups. While Sacco and Vanzetti appear to be victims of political and social prejudices of the times their actions placed them squarely in the bullseye. They were not on trial for their anarchist beliefs and actions but for robbery and murder. Whatever their political associations, our legal system should insure a fair trial. And in the absence of a fair trial our appeals process should protect a defendant’s rights. I found it compelling that most Americans trust in our trail systems and we make sure who is guilty is punished and who is not guilty is freed. In this specific case and likely other similar cases, people were convicted because who they are rather than what they may have done. I found it hard not to sympathize with Sacco and Vanzetti because the author made them sound like men that were just trying to find a better life by working in America even though they did not share the same beliefs. By the end of the book though I had a hard time sympathizing with them because it appears their anarchist beliefs were not just philosophical, but tended to be subversive. In the end, it appears our justice system failed. I would like to think that in today’s world, if a similar trial was to take place, our current judicial process would prevent such prejudice to take place. Otherwise, our appeals process would work to allow for new evidence and findings to insure a correct verdict.
The thesis of chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti is that guilt verses innocence was not really the issue in the Sacco and Vanzetti case; the issue was the debate over who or what best exemplified the precious words of our founding fathers in 1776. This case split the nation into two groups: Sacco and Vanzetti, the immigrants, workers, and poor against Judge Thayer, the “men of Norfolk”, the Protestant establishment, and those people who would not tolerate foreigners in America. The Sacco and Vanzetti case of the 1920s stretched the fundamental tensions of the American society. Some people, such as John Dos Passos, felt as though “America our nation has been beaten by strangers who have turned out language inside out who have taken the clean words our Fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul..” The time period in which the case first started to gain public attention was a time when nativism was at an all time high. Americans were hostile towards immigrants and their foreign political ideas because they feared these ideas were a threat to their cherished way of life. One of the most interesting points I found in this reading was John Higham’s three major attitudes of the Anericans in the 1920s:Anti-Catholicism, antiradicalism, and Anglo-Saxon nationalism. Anti-Catholicism is the Protestants distrust of the Catholic Church and the pope. Antiradicalism was the Americans’ association of Marxism, socialism, and anarchism with violence, terrorism, and Anti-Americanism. This antiradicalism was stemmed from the fear that the Bosheviks, Reds, and anarchists would try to take over America. Organizations such as the Ku Klux were born from, this idea. The American public linked anarchists with acts of murder, robbery, and terrorism, so when the Italian anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were labeled as suspects the public rallied to have them convicted. The Americans at this time regarded all radicals as criminals, and I agree with the author that this was the biggest reason why Thayer convicted Sacco and Vanzetti. Judge Thayer was prejudiced against the Italian anarchists before the defense could even present its side. All he needed was for Katzmann to provide him with enough evidence to convince the jury. Katzmann had three categories of evidence, two of which in my opinion were a failure. First Katzmann used eyewitness identification. Katzmann had three witnesses to testify against Sacco all of which had been caught in various lies and changed their stories several times. The defense on the other hand had seventeen legitimate witnesses. I think that this was the defense’s first small victory. Next, Katzmann used ballistics evidence to prove that Sacco’s gun fired the fatal shot of Mr. Berardelli. Katzmann’s experts however answered the question with ambiguity and told the jury that the pistol was similar to Sacco’s and could possibly be the same, but they could not be positive. The defense’s experts though said with certainty that Sacco’s gun did not fire that shot. They also went on to prove that Vanzetti had not in fact taken Berardelli’s gun because Vanzetti’s pistol was a .38 and Berardelli’s was a .32 caliber. Since obviously, the defense had weakened Katzmann’s ballistics evidence, Katzmann focused the case on the men’s consciousness of guilt, evasiveness upon arrest, and their radical political beliefs. And this I believe shows the biggest injustice of our law system because Judge Thayer based his conviction off of speculation and the suspects’ irrelevant political beliefs. Judge Thayer and the jury were simply making a point out of this case by condemning these foreigners regardless of their guilt or innocence. I think the author’s greatest point in this reading is that historians can use speculations while the law cannot justly use them; the law is supposed to throw speculation and base their decision off facts only. Obviously, this was not the case with Judge Thayer and his jury.
The thesis of Chapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti is that despite the intent of the justice system sometimes prejudices in the courtroom, like the judge’s prejudice against Sacco and Vanzetti, can affect the outcome of a case. One thing I have learned from reading this book is that history goes beyond what is in textbooks. To understand the full history of an event, the story must be presented from every side. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the story goes beyond the judge’s ruling, and their death by electric chair. One part that is often left out, and that I found interesting is that instead of using a lineup to identify the men officers made them stand alone in the middle of a room and pose as bandits. During the trial, there was a lack of evidence against both men; however, the decision to prosecute the two men still stood. Many Americans at this time wanted the two men prosecuted because of their alien status in America. The two men were Italian in a country where during this time immigration was looked down upon. Foreigner’s political ideas were perceived as a threat to the American way of life. I do not think it is right that the court had a prejudice against foreigners at this time. The fact that these men were from another country does not mean that they are guilty of a crime. When all of the evidence is presented, despite the courts final ruling, these men appear innocent of the crimes they were charged with. I disagree with the ruling against the two men; however, I do not think that these men were completely innocent. The men were guilty of other crimes, and had connections to the anarchist community. The men were not tried for these crimes though, but crimes that they didn’t commit. Sacco understood that because of his ties with the anarchist community and what he believed in he was guilty. He stated “If I was arrested because of the Idea I am glad to suffer. If I must I will die for it. But they have arrested me for a gunman gob.” The story told in chapter 11 though, is not whether the two men were guilty or innocent, for Sacco and Vanzetti are the only two men who truly know what they are guilty of. Chapter 11 uses these men to tell a story about the American legal system and the flaws in the system that are capable of putting innocent people in jail.
After reading “Sacco and Vanzetti”, I felt bad for the two men; after reviewing all of the evidence, I could not help but think that these two foreigners were innocent and it was because of their political beliefs and cultural background that they were condemned of a crime they did not commit. I could not help but think that if Sacco and Vanzetti lived about eighty years later, they would be found innocent of the crime because the evidence of them not committing the crime is so strong. They would also not be found guilty because I believe they were found guilty because the judge and other people in charge of the case wanted them to go to prison because the two men were foreigners and were anarchist, meaning they did not believe in American capitalism. After reading this chapter and learning more about how foreigners were treated during the early 20th century, I can’t help but feel bad for people like Sacco and Vanzetti who were prejudiced because of their alien background and political beliefs, but at the same time I feel lucky that I live in a time of American history where people are becoming more and more tolerant of political and cultural backgrounds. Reading stories like the one of Sacco and Vanzetti can show young readers that America was once a place full of people who strongly prejudiced minorities and how far America has come to being a more open minded and tolerant nation. I personally love reading about trial cases, so I am genuinely interested why Sacco and Vanzetti were keeping guns with them and why they lied to the police about where they really were when the crime occurred. This trial is the prime example of how even though America is known as the land that provides “freedom and opportunity”, America still had times when they were unfair to different ethnic groups. I read about the Sacco and Venzetti story last year in AP U.S History, but I did not realize until after reading this chapter how unfair the trial really was and how crazy the Red Scare was at the dawn of the 20th century. On one hand I understand why some of the public was scared of foreigners because they were afraid the Communists would try to take over America, but at the same time they should not have taken their fear out on innocent people like Sacco and Vanzetti.
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial displays the ignorant Nativism of Americans throughout history and during this time period. I always knew that Americans had a strong sense of defensive nationalism, but this reading changed my perspective altogether. After reading this section, I was shocked that such a severe sentence could be acquitted to two foreigners without clear and abundant evidence. The prosecutors were much more concerned with who the defendants were and what they believed rather than if they actually did anything wrong. Unfortunately, Sacco and Vanzetti happened to have their trial during the Red Scare in which the American public had begun to associate bad deeds with anarchists. I believe that Sacco and Vanzetti’s sentence was clear before the trial even started. This was a period in time where foreigners were stereotyped. They were both anarchists who spoke little English, and thus were considered to be criminals. I find it astounding that during the first two days of questioning, the men were not asked about the robbery, but about their political beliefs and associates. This only reinforces my opinion that the prosecutors were focusing on the background of the men rather than the crime. The trial not only lacked enough evidence to create a death sentence, but it also failed to meet the minimum standards of fairness. When police asked witnesses to identify the men, they dressed them up as bandits and made them pose. This is outrageous and is not fair at all. There were no fingerprints, the witness testimonies were all fake and contradicted, and the ballistics evidence did not prove enough to seal the trial, so Katzmann relied on “consciousness of guilt” which I believe is ridiculous to indict a death sentence. Despite this, the defense still created a solid argument explaining Sacco and Vanzetti’s mysterious behavior. I believe that there was no longer enough evidence for the trial to continue, and it should have been stopped. However, the trial was overseen by many prejudice men. Katzmann, the prosecutor, was a politically ambitious man with a tenacious and arrogant style. He knew that he had a weak case, but the trial was an enormous opportunity that he could not miss. He proceeded to convict these two men who had no criminal record because he had a warm feeling in his heart. Chief Justice John Aiken and Judge Thayer were men who believed unequivocally in the defendant’s guilt. They both ignored Sacco and Vanzetti’s explanations, and I believe this trial was not even remotely fair. I believe that their trial was big enough to invoke a national controversy and question the justice system during this period of time.
When I first started reading this chapter my first thought was who are these people. I was immediately intrigued with the story and was absolutely such with out a doubt that these two men were guilty of this crime. After further reading I suddenly felt really bad for these two poor men who really had no reason for doing anything wrong besides the fact of their background. The main topic in chapter eleven is the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti while also talking about the effect of the immigrants moving into America in the nineteen twenties during the Red Scare. This chapter also focuses on the legal aspect going back in the case trying to solve it the way we would think about it today. I have learned about the Red Scare before in history class but it was interesting to read this story where these two people were judged not on what crime they did or did not commit , but mostly on where they came from and their beliefs. You can see the way Americans in this time period treated the immigrants after the war over and jobs were taken. They were threatening the American people making tension with the immigrants. They were afraid the foreigners would weaken the gene pool or destroy their cherished way of life. All of this had a major impact on the result of the Sacco Vanzetti trial because Sacco and Vanzetti both fit the stereotypes that nativists had perfectly. Another thing was the fact that Vanzetti was a radical and proud of it. It was not that they completely looked guilty of murder, but they were very suspicious acting having guns and seen before the crime getting pass ports and knowing Mike Boda and picking up his car. They could not speak English very well thus making them that much more foreign and that much more guilty. Even though if I lived in this time period I would probably feel the same about the foreigners, I still was shocked of such an intense sentence with such little evidence. The little evidence that Katzmann had was very weak and relied on “consciousness of guilt” which is ridiculous and unfair. This shows how far the legal system in America has come. I think the trial shows us the true reason for a fair trial and even though I don’t believe these two men should have died with such little cause I do think that the outcome has influenced American history.
The thesis of the chapter, “Sacco and Vanzetti,” is that fear can change the outcome of any situation. After World War I, many Americans believed that any ongoing fear, especially the fear of immigrants, could be a threat to the “American way of life,” and the issues needed to be handled. Even though the evidence proves Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, the court convicted both men of murder because they both believed in anarchism, meaning both men believed in the abolishment of all government, which Americans feared. A person should not be convicted of a crime because of their backgrounds and beliefs; every person should be able to believe and think whatever they like without people fearing them. In my opinion, every person has the right to opinions because every living person has them. I understand how Americans could have feared the new flow of immigrants into the United States, but fear is no reason to convict innocent men for a crime because they both are aliens to a country. People do not need to stereotype a certain group of people. If I were to move abroad to a new country, I would not want to be treated as if I am a criminal and cannot be trusted. While reading the chapter, emotions of sympathy and anger filled within me because I felt empathy for both men and anger at the United States Judicial System. Both Sacco and Vanzetti traveled to the United States looking for a better life in order for higher paying jobs, but because they were immigrants, both were convicted and killed of the murder and robbery of Alessandro Berardelli. This is not right. While reading the chapter, one statement was interesting to me: the three major attitudes of Americans throughout history. John Higham identified the three major attitudes of the American people as anti-Catholicism, antiradicalism, and Anglo- Saxon nationalism. Before reading this statement, I never thought about the attitudes of the American people in the past, but after looking back into many of my history classes, I now realize that these three attitudes are the major ones in American history. The authors state, “The tides of nativism tend to rise and fall with the fortunes of the nation.” After thinking, this quotation is accurate; I agree with the Americans whose minds changed about immigration because of the condition of their country because I would not want immigrants coming into the county during tough times and taking my job. Every immigrant has to acquire a job in order to support himself, and jobs do not come available very often. Up until the end of reading the chapter, I believed Sacco and Vanzetti to be innocent with hardly any doubt about it, but after reading the last two pages of the chapter, I am unsure of whether both men are innocent or guilty. Paul Avrich uncovered a great deal of evidence, which puts Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence into question. The one piece of evidence at the end of the chapter that was bold to me is when Vanzetti told Judge Thayer, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” This quote puts Sacco and Vanzetti’s character into question.
Katherine, I, like you, thought before reading the chapter that Sacco and Vanzetti were definately guilty of their crime; I never really understood why this case was so famous. But after reading the chapter, I realize like you that this trial is a prime example of how life for immigrants was during the Red Scare. I just thought they were being treated unfairly because they had radical politicl views, but I definately agree with you that some of the American public was scared that having foreigners in America might change America's daily life with their foreign customs and they might take some of the "American tradition" out of America. These Americans are forgetting, though, they it was because of foreign traditions and customs that America had the customs it had back then. Like you I am also glad American trials are much more fair and honest today; now thankfully judges will not condemn you guilty if there is not much evidence against you and if you come from a certain ethical background. This chapter makes me all the more thankful that I live in a time in American history where people are becoming less and less racist towards different cultural and eithical backgrounds.
Before this reading assignment, the names Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti meant nothing to me. I might have recalled hearing their names alluded to on television or in a book, but I never would have associated these two men with a serious miscarriage of justice. During this era, the early 1920s, the United States had just emerged from World War I and was experiencing a post-war economic boom. As a result of this economic success, immigrants began pouring into America and were searching for jobs and often taking the jobs of native-born American workers. The majority of this influx of workers included immigrants from Eastern Europe who were hoping to escape their impoverished nation or who were hoping to earn money in the United States and then return to their respective homelands. The immigrants fleeing to the United States were most often Polish, Italian, and Jewish. The American citizens were most concerned with these non-Anglo Saxon immigrants, and the fact that these “second wave” immigrants were associated with Catholicism, anarchists, and communists. All of these elements contributed to the United States citizens’ hatred and prejudice toward these immigrants. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial enabled nativists to use the Italian anarchists as a scapegoat for the growing economic competition and the mounting unease of radical movements. Personally, the question is not so much whether Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent, but rather were the courts, judges, and jurors corrupt enough to allow this injustice to take place. In addition, as American citizens, who were such staunch believers in the principles of the founding fathers of their nation, how were they able to dismiss the basis of what their country had stood for since her birth in 1776? In my opinion, the answer is fear, fear of the foreigner, fear of the radical, fear of the competition, and fear of the unknown. Some Americans were so willing to believe the unfounded rumors that they were described by their fellow citizens that they automatically ruled out the possibility of innocence. Ultimately, it was less the jurors’ and more the public’s prejudice and need to charge and punish someone that convicted Sacco and Vanzetti. According to the reading, key eyewitnesses at trial gave testimony stating that they spotted Sacco and Vanzetti at the scene of the crime only to recant their statements and then subsequently retract their recant. The conflicting physical evidence and witness testimony proved to be problematic for the prosecution and allowed the defense to point out the discrepancies to the defense’s benefit. Nevertheless, in the courtroom, this “advantage” proved to change nothing; however, eventually, in the eyes of the public, these blunders by the prosecution gave the public a more open mind regarding the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti. In a modern day court, the contradictions and inconsistencies of key witnesses might be enough to be granted an appeal. However, in the biased, nationalist courts of the 1920s, it was not enough to save the Italians. Although the American judicial system has its flaws and crooked judges and prosecutors do exist, I also believe it is the cases like Sacco and Vanzetti, Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson that have shaped the United States judicial system into what is today, an emblem of impartiality and legitimacy.
Sacco and Vanzetti were considered convicts because they were accused of murdering two men during an armed robbery in Massachusetts. However, in my mind, Sacco and Vanzetti actually also victims in the story. Victims of an unfair trial and victims of prejudice. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to make Sacco and Vanzetti out to be good guys or anything, but all of the controversy that went on in the trials make me a little disappointed in the court system we had in the 1920s. If the evidence is clear and strong enough to sentence them to death, then fine. But at least give the men a fair trial, they deserve at least that. The unjust acts began very soon off of the accusation. Early in the case, when the witnesses were asked to identify the two men who committed the robbery, rather than using a lineup, Sacco and Vanzetti were forced to stand alone in the middle of a room in a bandit position. I don't care who you are, there is no way that can be justified. It is simply unfair. The discrepancies did not stop here. Judges who were friends of the prosecuting attorney, and who had already believed in the defendants' guilt were let on to the trial, and the fact that the convicts were anarchists seemed to be at the front of everyone's mind. It was wrong for the prosecutor to attempt to cloud people's judgment with his constant reminders that Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists, and it was also wrong for the people to allow them to cloud their judgment. The trial should be decided on hard evidence such as ballistics, not by race and government views. I must admit, however, that the lying that Sacco and Vanzetti did really hurt their credibility and chances of coming out good in the trial. I understand that they lied out of fear of getting deported, but there is no excuse for lying under police questioning in my opinion. Then there is no way of really knowing if what the person is saying is the truth or not the rest of the time he speaks. This is where Katzmann got his “guilt of consciousness” evidence from, which may could have been avoided had Sacco and Vanzetti told the truth from the get go. The bottom line is that nobody knows for absolute certainty if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or not. The court could have been right, and probably were, but there is also a chance that they cost two innocent men their lives, and thats not a chance the court system should ever take. There is a saying, “innocent until proven guilty,” but it seems as if in this instance, it was the opposite. It seemed as if everyone assumed that the Italian anarchists were guilty, and waited for someone to try to prove their innocence. I just think that these men were denied their right to a fair trial, and I hope that another controversy of this magnitude doesn't show up in court again anytime in the new future.
"EmilyEspy4, First, there are two main themes to my response: to say that i agree with you on the fact that the conviction of Sacco and CO. was filled with bias and unfair trial practices and that this reading was enlightening. however, my Second point deals with the latter half of your response, the one i feel is an idealistic view of the world and country we live in. 1(the unfairness of the trial, as told by the story, and the cruelty put upon the defendants IS because of the social-political atmosphere of the time (red scare) America was scared, and after what happened in Russia, maybe rightfully so.) 2(To start you said "that America was once a place full of people who strongly prejudiced minorities" in conjunction with stating that Sacco and Vanzetti would have probably been found innocent today. Though it is true they would have had a fairer trial today, i don't really believe it would be because of the impartiality of the American government. Keep in mind that, as compared to then, when something major happens in America, it is seen all over the world. If such a trial was to happen today, they would receive financial support from private donors all around the world-helping their defense case. Now i ask you and whoever reads this to think about the circumstances today. Anarchy is not the 'bad word.' Instead we hear tings like Illegal immigrant, Socialist, Communist, and most misunderstood MUSLIM. You America has become more tolerant and open minded, and i agree. Please don't assume the battle for understanding and equality is over. For instance in Arizona an immigration law still being debated-which i don't completely disagree with-gives police officials the authority to stop and check ANY citizen for illegal immigrant papers. Hopefully this will lead to better border control but at the moment legal citizens of Hispanic, and oriental descent are SCARED. They realize that the police man has a much greater chance of stopping them because they fit the racial profile, because they have a characteristic look about them. They are not judged on the fact that most of them are legal residents of this great nation, nor that they are productive members of society with hopes, ideas, dreams for their children)"
Katherine, The farther along I read in this chapter, I also was convinced of Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence up until the last few pages of the chapter. As I started reading the last pages of the chapter, my view on the Sacco and Vanzetti’s character started to change. Historian Paul Avrich uncovered evidence that puts the men’s character into question. The one piece of evidence at the end of the chapter that was bold to me is when Vanzetti told Judge Thayer, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” This quote stood out to me because I am wondering, what is he guilty for? Even though you seemed to disagree with the Americans in the past who were not pro-immigration. I can understand reasons why their perceptions of immigrants were low. I understand why Americans did not want immigrants coming over because I would not want immigrants coming to our country and taking my job. If there is a new flow of immigration in a country without a booming economy, then jobs are going to be lost for lowing paying worker and the poverty rate is going to increase. I believe the Americans in the past felt like many Americans today. Many Americans are angered over the fact that illegal aliens from Mexico are being smuggled into our country and are taking American jobs everyday.
Reed, I like that you pointed out that at the beginning of the chapter you felt sympathetic towards Sacco and Vanzetti. I agree that they should have a fair trial and be punished only for crimes that they are guilty of. By the end of the book, I was not as sympathetic towards them either, because as you said their anarchist beliefs were not just philosophical, but tended to be subversive. I, too, hope that our current judicial process would prevent a similar situation from happening. I found the nativism in this chapter compelling too. Today, people from almost every nation can be found in America, but during economic times this book has shown me that people were not so open to diversity and immigration. We, as a country, do like to think that we have welcomed people in times of trouble, as we should, but we don’t always do that. America was started as a country offering a new life, and just as our ancestors were welcomed over here many years ago, we as a country should still be welcoming others coming for the same reason our families came for.
The trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti reveals the prejudices associated with nativism, along with the flaws of America's judicial system. At first glance, it seems as though Sacco and Vanzetti are guilty of their crimes in Braintree, Massachusetts. But upon further indulgence into the trial, their innocence may be proven. The arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti was unorthodox to see the least. They were arrested because they looked like "suspicious characters" who may be connected to the Braintree murders. During their interrogation, Sacco and Vanzetti were not questioned on their whereabouts on the day of the murder, but on their political beliefs. This is relevant because in the early 1920's, an outbreak of "nativism" spread across the United States. Immigrants with radical religious or political beliefs were often persecuted, and anyone with books or any form of literature that promoted anarchy or bashed capitalism would be taken into custody and perhaps even deported. Sacco and Vanzetti were known anarchists, which probably did not help their case when they went to trial for the Braintree murders. The trial for Sacco and Vanzetti was flawed from the beginning. Their judge seemed bent on convicting them of their crimes from the beginning, based on his actions in the courtroom and out of the courtroom. Also, the prosecution often confused Sacco and Vanzetti, based on their lack of knowledge of the English language. Another misnomer on the prosecution’s side was their ballistics evidence. The ballistics expert the prosecution brought in said that there was a one hundred percent chance the bullet was fired from a weapon that Sacco and Vanzeti carried. The defense however, said that there was no conclusive evidence that they fired the fatal bullet. Everyone on the jury was also a native born American, no immigrants. Despite all of this, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. I personally believe that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent, given their solid alibis from over ten people, and the circumstantial evidence that the case against them was based on. The flaws of the judicial system in the early 20th century are really evident in this case to me. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted not on hard evidence, but on evidence that only suggests that they were murderers. And based on this evidence, their lives were abruptly ended. We have come a long way from then, developing the Miranda rights, and making sure everyone has a fair trial. However, we cannot bring back the lives of these 2 men, who may or may not have committed murder. What we can do, is learn from our mistakes in the past to work towards a greater future.
Sriram, you are right about the pitiful excuse for a trial that went on in this case. The evidence presented was not clear at all, yet the judge and jury still tried to base a decision off of mostly inconclusive claims. It points out how flawed our justice system can be. All of the men involved with the trial let their personal beliefs impede our system of justice. This is the one horrible flaw of our justice system and you correctly pointed it out. Sacco and Vanzetti were both anarchists and immigrants. This did not clash well with the time period. The Red Scare was beginning to happen and the nativist movement was in full swing. This immediately put Sacco and Vanzetti at a disadvantage. People dislike anarchists because of all the bombings that were occurring. These men let their emotions and political beliefs get the best of them. This caused them to rule in a way that was corrupt and backed by little to no evidence.
How can a small town murder and robbery split a country, even a world in half? What could cause millions of people to protest for the lives of two Italian immigrants? The bottom line is that the trial and case of Sacco and Vanzetti represent a much larger underlying issue. The rift in the world was caused by the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti seemed to be suffering for their political views, race and immigration status rather than for crimes. All evidence seemed to support their innocence, however trial Judge Thayer continued to ignore facts in exchange for his prejudice against Sacco and Vanzetti. The author states that before the trial even began, before the facts were laid before the jury, Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty. Judge Thayer knew it. How did he know it? No one can tell. The world waited anxiously to see whether Justice or apparent prejudice would prevail in the case. On April 9, 1927 the case came to a head when after some six years of repeated appeals Judge Thayer sentenced the two men to death by the electric chair. The majority of Americans let out a collective groan, during the years of appeals, more and more evidence had surfaced that proved the men to be innocent. Public opinion had swayed from the prosecutor to the defendant. It became apparent that prejudice had prevailed over justice. Or had it? It became well known that over the years leading to their execution that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. They did not believe in organized government. The author of this chapter addresses the fact that Fred Moore, the defense attorney for the defendants, admitted after their execution on August 23, 1927 that Vanzetti and Sacco had been hiding large amounts of dynamite at their home for the purpose of destroying the homes of prominent government leaders. So the author leaves us with a very challenging question. Was justice served in a very twisted way? Did prejudice lead to justice? Did Sacco and Vanzetti deserve to die? If Sacco and Vanzetti were planning terrorist actions against our country they deserved to die. But did they deserve to die for crimes that they by all evidence did not commit? Perhaps if more work had been put into research into the lives and backgrounds of Sacco and Vanzetti their malicious plans would have come to light. Less time should have been invested in painting them for crimes they obviously did not commit. Time has corrected our justice system so that all are truly innocent until proven guilty. However the case of Sacco and Vanzetti serves as a constant reminder that prejudices and preconceived ideas should not be allowed to work their way into the courtroom. But… to pull from a favorite resource, The Bible: Numbers 32:23 Be sure that your sins will find you out.
Was this verse proven in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti? That is a personal opinion that I will leave to you.
What I interpreted as the thesis of “Sacco and Vanzetti” is that if Americans get too caught up in defending “the American way of life” and not focusing and relying on what our Forefathers wrote as the laws of our country, then we have our priorities skewed. Many times, as displayed in the unjust trail of Sacco and Vanzetti, the American people let their fear of outsiders, immigrants, and terrorists control their judgment and reason. The sole reason the biased Judge Webster Thayer and District Attorney Frederick Katzmann were so determined to imprison and later death sentence Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti was because of Thayer and Katzmann’s personal Nativism beliefs. When these two powerful men got wrapped up in what they thought of as defending their country, they ignored the contradictions to the evidence that Katzmann had provided and stopped at nothing to let Sacco and Vanzetti’s appeal follow through. I agree with most of my classmates that the trail of these two Italian men was by far unjust, discriminatory, and pathetic. What surprised me the most was that there was literally no concrete, physical evidence that supported the notion that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty; the only thing that Katzmann wasn’t disproven on was the victims “evasive behavior” and “consciousness of guilt”. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me that two men, innocent or guilty, were shocked to death based upon their behavior towards their case. Personally, I have no idea or theory as to if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or innocent, but if they were innocent I view their death as murder. I think it was murder, if they were innocent, because first off they could not understand English when the prosecutor was asking them questions; therefore, they were unable to defend themselves meaning an unfair trial. Second, the job of the trial as stated in the book is not to decide if the two men were innocent or guilty but merely to determine if the evidence is strong enough to confirm the suspects as guilty. Clearly, the evidence was neither strong nor factual; for example, when Captain Proctor later signed an official declaration that stated he told Katzmann that there was no evidence that proved Sacco’s gun had made the fatal shot to Alessandro Berardelli. Last, I view it as murder because these two men, if innocent, were killed because of their beliefs in America where the first Amendment gives people the freedom of speech and religion; granted, the two men weren’t citizens, but I think they should have been treated in a somewhat similar way. On the other hand, if these two men were guilty of this particular crime, I think they should have had a less serious punishment like 20 years in prison instead of death by the electric chair. The part mentioned on how Sacco and Vanzetti possessed dynamite in their apartment made me question my earlier view of murder, but then I realized that I earlier thought this without knowing about their background; after I found out, I was just as bad as the court to judging them. Sacco and Vanzetti’s whole trial reinforces the idea that Americans must base our trials on the laws our Forefathers wrote for us and not on our personal beliefs in order to give everyone equal, fair trials. After reading about the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, I am disappointed in the justice system of the 1920’s and hoping the one in 2010 isn’t doing a repeat of this case without me or my fellow American citizens knowing.
Zach, I agree with you on almost every account. Sacco and Vanzetti were almost definitely innocent. I think that the authors do a great job clarifying that point. One issue I do disagree with you on is when you said: "And based on this evidence, their lives were abruptly ended. We have come a long way from then, developing the Miranda rights, and making sure everyone has a fair trial. However, we cannot bring back the lives of these 2 men, who may or may not have committed murder." I think that these two men did deserve to die, they were obviously plotting to harm our nation, and they were planning to accomplish this with dynamite. I would not be the first person to feel pity for them or wish to bring them back. However, I do believe that they should have died for the crime they actually DID commit. That being, their apparent disregard for America and their malicious intentions towards the USA not for some murder/ robbery that they were painted for. Otherwise, I agree and I look forward to having you at DWS.
what i thought the thesis was, because it was not included in my original post.
I believe that the thesis of "Sacco and Vanzetti" focused primarily on determining if Sacco and Vanzetti were given a fair trial, rather than if they were guilty or innocent.
After reading the chapter on Sacco and Vanzetti, I was faced with very contradictory views and I was not sure of what I believed to be true. It was a lot of information to process, and it puzzled me to see such a small case grow so large and important to so many people from other cities and even states. I believe this to be an example of one of the countries greatest downfalls: the epitome of the countries’ prejudice nature. Sacco and Vanzetti were foreign anarchists, convicted of robbery and murder, charges which I still can not prove to be true or false. The fact of the matter is that whether or not Sacco and Vanzetti were in fact guilty, the leaders (lawyers and judges) of that time felt it necessary to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law because they fit the “profile” of the criminal. In America, every person; no matter what race, ethnicity or belief, is allowed access to a fair trial; not to mention is claimed innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it seems as if these values on which the country was founded on were swept under the rug because it was some sort of an “anarchist nature” for these men to do this. I was shocked when I learned that prosecutors did not ask about the robbery at all in the first two days, but instead questioned the immigrants’ beliefs and motives. The timing could not have been worse for these two immigrants, who were being charged in a time of economic downfall and also the Red Scare period. An anarchist is a person who believes there should be no government at all, and thoughts like that were unheard of in America at the time. What would happen if “criminals” like that roamed the country and tried to instigate trouble for the government? So in my opinion, I believe it was more than a hatred of their beliefs that drove them to be so avid about convicting these men, but also a fear of them. As the chapter delved deeper, I found it harder to determine whether or not the men were innocent or guilty. Sure, they had obtained my full support in the beginning with the complete lack of evidence and racial profiling, but when it came time to defend them some of their statements did not seem like those of an innocent man. Whether or not they were guilty of their charges I can not say, but I do believe that they were condemned guilty long before they were officially convicted. If I could sum up the most basic thing this chapter was trying to teach it would have to be the age old saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.”
My thesis is this: (sorry I forgot on my original post): I think the thesis of this chapter, “Sacco and Vanzetti”, would be to point out the fact that ethnic prejudices and judicial system flaws were very prevalent in this time.
After reading the chapter entitled “Sacco and Vanzetti,” I came to the conclusion that the thesis of the chapter tells of how the American justice system is flawed because of an overwhelming amount of prejudicial thoughts in the courtroom. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian immigrants who were accused of robbing the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in South Braintree, Massachusetts. The main detail to pay attention to would be the fact that they were two Italian immigrants living in the United States. With this crime taking place right after the conclusion of World War I, Americans would obviously possess a sense of nationalism for their country and its citizens. The timing of the situation held no advantage for the two Italians; for instance, if the murder and robbery took place with a modern justice system, Sacco and Vanzetti would have definitely not been executed and possibly not even been sent to prison. After reading this chapter, I personally believe that the two men should have been declared innocent and let free. Although I realize that having a flawless justice system is unfeasible, it is possible to improve from the standards that were set in the trials of Sacco and Vanzetti. Although the two were arrested near the crime scene with loaded guns, there is not much more evidence that pointed to the two as criminals. The two were immediately asked of their political beliefs, which I thought there was no relevance for that in order to decide whether or not they were guilty or innocent. The courtroom was filled to the brim with prejudice. First of all, why would they be asked about their political beliefs instead of the robbery itself? Although they could hardly speak any English, the foreigners should not have been stereotyped and accused of another man’s murder. When it comes to the justice system, it is not necessarily what you know, but usually what you can prove in court; during this case, neither of the two was existent, so the two Italians should have been easily proven innocent. I feel sorry for these men because they were innocent men who did nothing wrong at the time. How could these two men be accused of murder and robbery with the lack of ample evidence? This reading has taught me two significant principles: we live under a flawed justice system, and prejudice is immoral and should be lessened altogether.
After reading about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, the thesis has become obvious that these two men were victims of prejudice and judicial system flaws. Whether or not the two men were actually guilty of robbery and murder, the law entitles Sacco and Vanzetti the right to a fair trial. I do not believe that the two men received a fair trial by any means. As a matter of fact, right to a fair trial is the sixth amendment to the constitution. I would have hoped that the United States would have gotten that down pat by the time this trial occurred. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In regards to racial and ethnic prejudices, I believe that a lot of this was dealt their way as well. I find it very interesting that the police officers that questioned Sacco and Vanzetti after the robbery and murder asked what their personal beliefs and motives were before actually questioning them about the incident (this occurred two days after the fact). I don’t think that personal beliefs and opinions in governmental issues are relevant in a low profile robbery and murder case unless the murder was targeted toward a minority, person of different religion, etc. If this were a high profile murder case and or terrorist operation, I could see the relevance. As I continued my reading, my thoughts were leaning toward, “innocent,” simply because of lack of evidence and other factors. However, as I finished the chapter, I started to lean towards the middle; I was unsure of the innocence of the two men, despite the racial/ ethnic prejudice and judicial system flaws. Then, in a very lone incident that my memory served me correctly, I remembered a point in the chapter where it was stated that the men didn’t adapt to American culture, nor did they try to become a U.S. citizen. In addition, the eminent law professor quoted in this chapter stated: “…who had not learned to use our language even modestly well.” (I am aware that the professor’s statement was geared towards Sacco and Vanzetti in a negative way). However, this points out that the men didn’t speak English all too well. Later on in the chapter, a quote directed to Judge Thayer from Vanzetti, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” At first, I was swayed by this, but then I remembered the quote that the brothers didn’t speak English well. Maybe Vanzetti didn’t know what he was saying or that it was taken the wrong way. Just throwing that out there as another of many possibilities. Rip to shreds if you so choose!
Thesis: The history read about in books and the history made everyday is not always black-and white, defined by simple motives full of hate or righteousness. Instead the political atmosphere and public perception, no matter how misguided they may be, has a much more considerable influence on events, whether locally or internationally affiliated. First, i believe Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of a crime they did not commit. And this crime, a simple armed robbery (one that our reading tells us was quite common in the 20's) mad easier by the sever stupidity of Rexford Slater, and its result: two innocent Americans dead, two Italian anarchist executed, and the eyes of the world turned on the USA once again. I find it very easy to believe that the court system imparted their bias upon the two accused, possibly believing they were protecting America as a society (a common view in nativist and poor economic times). Like the authors, i found it quite ironic that Sinclair, a pro-socialist and staunch defender of the accused, was able to uncover genuine evidence that they were probably not only philosophical anarchists (a testimony the prosecution could have used). What we see in this chapter can be paralleled to many social injustices that followed the 1920's -like putting the Japanese in interment camps, the stereotyping of Hispanics, and the persecution of civil rights activist in the 1960's. In each situation you have a people, living in America, yet feeling separate, almost as if they live in "two nations." As seen in the reading the question "what is defined as freedom of speech" One of the reasons Sacco and Vanzetti were trying so diligently to flee the country was because the inflammatory writings they were hiding would have gotten them arrested (and convicted). But why were their beliefs and ideas being so shunned. (doesn't anarchy-though against any type of centralized government-promote individual integrity and personal accountability in place of a governing body). Are integrity and accountability such bad virtues? If we learn anything from this reading it is that each court case must treat the defendant as an individual (and therefor evaluate him on his individual thoughts and acts), not as a part of a fear based stereotype. Whether it be a different religion, theology, ideology, or monetary system, let us as Americans remind the world that we are enlightened, educated, and accepting. Before we criticize other's culture can we first learn (not believe in) and discuss our differing opinions.
Thesis: The history read about in books and the history made everyday is not always black-and white, defined by simple motives full of hate or righteousness. Instead the political atmosphere and public perception, no matter how misguided they may be, has a much more considerable influence on events, whether locally or internationally affiliated. First, i believe Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of a crime they did not commit. And this crime, a simple armed robbery (one that our reading tells us was quite common in the 20's) mad easier by the sever stupidity of Rexford Slater, and its result: two innocent Americans dead, two Italian anarchist executed, and the eyes of the world turned on the USA once again. I find it very easy to believe that the court system imparted their bias upon the two accused, possibly believing they were protecting America as a society (a common view in nativist and poor economic times). Like the authors, i found it quite ironic that Sinclair, a pro-socialist and staunch defender of the accused, was able to uncover genuine evidence that they were probably not only philosophical anarchists (a testimony the prosecution could have used). What we see in this chapter can be paralleled to many social injustices that followed the 1920's -like putting the Japanese in interment camps, the stereotyping of Hispanics, and the persecution of civil rights activist in the 1960's. In each situation you have a people, living in America, yet feeling separate, almost as if they live in "two nations." As seen in the reading the question "what is defined as freedom of speech" One of the reasons Sacco and Vanzetti were trying so diligently to flee the country was because the inflammatory writings they were hiding would have gotten them arrested (and convicted). But why were their beliefs and ideas being so shunned. (doesn't anarchy-though against any type of centralized government-promote individual integrity and personal accountability in place of a governing body). Are integrity and accountability such bad virtues? If we learn anything from this reading it is that each court case must treat the defendant as an individual (and therefor evaluate him on his individual thoughts and acts), not as a part of a fear based stereotype. Whether it be a different religion, theology, ideology, or monetary system, let us as Americans remind the world that we are enlightened, educated, and accepting. Before we criticize other's culture can we first learn (not believe in) and discuss our differing opinions.
After reading Chapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti, I thought the thesis would be how flawed the American justice system was. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti helped expose the judicial problems America has to whole world. The whole world knew of the two Italian immigrants that were wrongly killed in America. They were suspected of killing a paymaster and robbing him in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The cop that arrested them said the reason for the arrest was they were suspicious characters. It is still amazing that stuff like that still happens today. I saw a video where a cop punched a woman in the face because she was asking why she was getting arrested. Also about a year ago, there was an incident in Dallas, Texas in which a man was arrested because he was speeding to get to the hospital because his father was having an emergency. He did not pull over till he got to the hospital. But this just shows how badly the American justice system needs corrections. However, this happened right after World War I, so tensions were still heated between nations. So it was just bad timing for Sacco and Bartolomeo. Certainly today they would have been given a fair trial and would not have been killed. However, they really didn’t help themselves out. I am still curious why they were carrying all those shells around for. And the fact that they could not speak English could have been a problem if the prosecutors were asking questions without translators. I simply believe that there was not enough evidence, so therefore the trial should have been dismissed unless more evidence was provided. I believe that Katzmann just used this trial for personal gain. He was known to be arrogant and was ruthless to get popularity. As the police and prosecutors were going about the case, they followed irregular procedures according to Davidson and Lytle. Katzmann did not even tell Sacco and Bartolomeo why they had been arrested. Even the police focused the questions on their political beliefs and associates. They did not even question the robbery. That fact really got me to say that these men had to be innocent. If they had robbed the paymaster, would they not have that money on them? I thought it was amazing that they police said Sacco and Bartolomeo were conscious with guilt.
After reading chapter 11, Sacco and Vanzetti, I believe the thesis entails that ones political beliefs and philosophies can cloud ones judgement when confronted with opposition from a rival political view. As an Italian American myself, my initial reaction to chapter 11 was of course anger. Two clearly innocent Italians were sentenced to death due to their countries of birth and respectable political views. The circumstances of their trials was completely ridiculous. Any respectable modern day lawyer would be appalled by the terrible feeble witness statements and lack of evidence that lead to the unjust execution of these two men. America's modern legal system may contain numerous flaws itself; but in comparison to the show America was running in the 1920's, America's current legal system exemplifies absolute perfection. One can only wonder as to why the judge presiding over such an important case would be one with such an impartial attitude towards the case. Judge Thayer, being a diehard Nationalist was obviously going harshly punish two foreigners with anarchist political views. It also did not help that the District Attorney also was a Nationalist with an apparent dislike for foreigner, who he deemed were attacking the well being of his beloved Capitalistic country. Not a single aspect of Katzmann's arguments would have held up in a respectable court setting. His witnesses all had differing stories with little to no consistency. The ballistics evidence was only able to tell the jury that a "similar" gun was used in the murders. The nation's legal system is seriously flawed when two men can be sentenced to death based solely on the fact that they acted guiltily. I do not doubt that the two men were up to no good at the time (holding loaded guns with excess ammo and being evasive is not usually a good sign), but to be charged for a murder when they both had air tight alabis is ludicrous. The ultimate cause for both these men's death is the fact that each of them was a devout anarchist and "threat" to America. The American population's fear of radical foreigners destroying their country from within primarily lead to the death of both Sacco and Vanzetti.
The thesis of Chapter 11 states that, in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, justice in the court was curbed by the nativist pride, personal prejudices, and anti-anarchist sentiment of the judge, the prosecution, and the jury. The courts were never truly able to prove the guilt or innocence of these two acclaimed criminal murderers, but in my opinion that’s not the purpose of the chapter. In all truth, I believe that the decision of the courts regarding the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti could have ventured either way; there was enough evidence to prove them guilty, and enough evidence to prove them innocent. I think that the chapter is trying to say that, even though our justice system is designed to give people their necessary rights, sometimes, the duties of our justice system become limited due to personal prejudices and beliefs. Take a little time to think about the mindset of the American people in the early 1920s: were they not totally against any political belief that threatened their democratic way of life? Because of World War I, any foreign idea that seemed to even slightly go against American democracy was considered a deadly form of evil. Nativist pride and national security had the American people constantly looking over their shoulders in a mild panic. Unfortunately, Sacco and Vanzetti were the living, breathing, and moving idea of what almost all Americans hated to see in their country. Their anarchist views and relations to anarchist leaders were considered by most to be downright treason. In the early 1920s, most urban Americans also despised the immigrants for having to compete with them for jobs and housing; therefore, Sacco and Vanzetti, being Italian immigrants, had another reason to be hated among their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. All this personal prejudice and nativist pride came tumbling together to create an unstoppable demon for Sacco and Vanzetti in the courtroom, one that they could only dream of overcoming. Instead of focusing on their suspected crimes, Katzmann, the prosecuting attorney focused almost all of his time and attention on Sacco and Vanzetti’s radical beliefs and associations with other radicals, as well as their “apparent” consciousness of guilt upon arrest. Whenever the defense would try to bring in concrete evidence and personal testimony, the prosecution would do their best to fight back with “unusual zeal.” For instance, when the defense used eye witnesses to try and prove Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence, the prosecution would claim that the witnesses, who were all foreigners, would do anything to protect their fellow foreigners. Also, when the defense attempted to use ballistics to prove the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti, the prosecution hired their own ballistics specialist to prove the defense wrong, even though their evidence didn’t quite add up. Overall, while the two suspects, in my opinion, never received enough evidence to be proved innocent, they surely didn’t receive enough evidence to be proved guilty either. The outcome of the trial was derived entirely from the prejudice and pride that occasionally proves to be stronger than the American justice system, two factors that continue to curb court decisions even to this day.
Sacco and Vanzetti Chapter 11 thesis: The thesis in this chapter is that Americas justice system cannot function properly if there is prejudices against the defendants. The nineteen-twenties were a time of great nationalism and pride, so when there was an opportunity to take two Italian immigrants off the streets, Judge Thayer took it. There was insufficient evidence to convict these men, but the judge and the jury saw it fit to condemn these men to death. The sixth amendment states that everyone has a right to a fair and speedy trial. Sacco and Vanzetti’s trial was no doubt speedy, but not at all fair. The judge wanted to convict these men because they weren’t Americans and they were believed to be anarchists. Since these two men were foreigners and anarchists they were looked as a threat to America. Since the prosecutor could not produce sufficient evidence against the two men, he made very clear that they were anarchists. The jury and the judge then proceeded to condemn both of the men to death by the electric chair. The question that arises in my mind about this trial is what were the two men really convicted for? Was it that they actually committed the crimes, or was it simply their nationality? I think it may have been a combination of the two. The crime was committed by two men, but it probably wasn’t Sacco or Vanzetti. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The men came to America in a time where immigration was looked down upon. The American public felt that they were criminals for coming into their country without being invited. I think that this prejudice led to their conviction. America was founded on the beliefs that anyone should be able to come to this country as long as they contribute to society. These men never founded charities or gave to the poor, but they certainly weren’t doing anyone any harm. America’s justice system is based on the fact that anyone has the right to an impartial judge and a jury of your peers. These men were alone in this country so they had no peers and Judge Thayer was never even half-way impartial. The only redeeming factor in the Judges case is that these two men were almost worshipping the idea of anarchy. I would like to think of this as a stepping stone in American history rather than a step back. This brought us out of the idea that America is for American’s only, and that anyone can make it here should be able to stay here.
The general thesis of “Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti” is that by demonstrating Nationalism and trying to defend our country against foreigners and radicals, we can become prejudice and actually go against our country and “the clean words our Fathers spoke.” The chapter uses the complicated trail of Sacco and Vanzetti to show us the truth behind this thesis. For such a huge and well-known case, I was surprised that I had never even heard of Sacco and Vanzetti. Unlike the other chapters we were assigned to read, I had no clue about this information so it was much more interesting to read. Also, since I had never heard of the case, I had no bias diving into the reading. When I first began reading, I thought that I would be reading about evidence determining whether Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent or guilty. However, I learned that this case had little to do with innocent or guilty; it had so much more to do with the flaws of our justice system and how personal prejudice influenced judges and attorneys. I was blown away by the amount of evidence that pointed to Thayer’s and Katzmann’s prejudices but they continued to determine the outcome of the case. The evidence in the case that supposedly “proved them guilty” was completely absurd. The witnesses were prejudice and unreliable, and the ballistics report was proved false. The “consciousness of guilt” that Katzmann based his case on was obviously the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. Many times, people in our justice system were heard admitting the fact that they did not care if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty; only that they were anarchists and that “they ought to hang anyway.” Right away it was obvious that this whole case was centered around Nativism. I believe that timing had a lot to do with the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. When the case took place, our justice system was different than it is today. Not until the cases of Miranda and Escobedo in 1966 and 1964 were suspects allowed to remain silent, to be told their rights, and to use an impartial lineup for identification. In today’s time, Sacco and Vanzetti would not have had to tell the police and justice system officials their views on government and our country immediately after their arrest. Their views on government and our country played more in this case than the actual evidence against their suspected crime of murder and robbery. After reading, I realized many citizens of the time were just as enraged by this disposal of American justice as I was. As Dos Passos said, the case of Sacco and Vanzetti formed “two nations.” This is why the case was such a big deal that spread all over the country and the world. It was so controversial that our country was split in two- by the ones who let their Nativism overcome their American ideals and the ones who fought for Sacco and Vanzetti’s justice.
Before reading the chapter "Sacco and Vanzetti", I had no idea what these two names meant. Now I see that these two men and their "crime" caused a major uproar in the United States. The point of this chapter is to show how much power the government really has and if they want something bad enough you can bet on it happening. The court system did not find any evidence on these men for being guilty of a murder. But they were still found guilty and senesced to death. The only thing the courts had against these men was that they were foreigners. These men's trials were during the time of the Red Scare, and I think this had a lot to do with the courts finding these men guilty. Most of the people in the United States would have flipped if the men were found innocent and let go free. This is because the people were only seeing what the government let out about these people. If I were one of these men I would have been furious as I am sure they were. The fact that they were being punished for looking guilty and holding a loaded gun is insane. The judge was thinking about his personal beliefs other than what this country is based on. This is that all are equal no matter the background. These particular men did not agree with any type of government, for they stated that any government leads to a downfall. I believe this is what made the judge partial to his own beliefs. Thayer, the original trial judge, could have been seen as partial when he was asked to see if the jury could come up with another verdict. Any man who thought he was absolutely correct would simply have said "no". But it is said Thayer took close to 25,000 words to deny this. If I was aware of this, and had the power to do anything about it I would have seen to it that Thayer was guilty of prejudice. It all comes down to extreme nationalist. I know that I do not like illegal aliens in the United States, but if they become legal they are just as American as I am. The judge in this case was more worried about killing these men then trying to get them into the United States. Thayer knew he was wrong, but he knew he held the power so no one could do much about it. The correct thing was to ask the men to leave the country or if they wanted to stay make them get a green card. Another point I think the judge was trying to make was for other immigrants to leave or become a citizen. And if they failed to do this they could end up like these men. So Thayer was making a point with these two men.
I like the way that you considered Sacco and Vanzetti as not being any more innocent than they were guilty. When I first read this chapter, I was so enraged by the prejudice views of the court that I immediately considered Sacco and Vanzetti innocent. Even though they did not deserve to be proven guilty, they were not for sure considered innocent either. It is true that the courts had no way of determining the truth. I agree with you when you discuss that Sacco and Vanzetti fit the stereotypes immigrant that all Americans were afraid of. Although it wasn’t necessarily fair, Americans were truly afraid of anarchists and they had a reason to be. The media told the citizens of the United Sates that they should fear anarchists and radicals. These ideas were so widespread during this time period that not even evidence could prove Sacco and Vanzetti innocent in a courtroom of prejudice judges.
Sacco and Vanzetti, Chapter 11, was my favorite to read because it clearly shows corruption in America’s justice system. The thesis behind this chapter is that personal prejudice toward race, belief, or any other controversial factor can greatly influence the outcome of a trial. The two men were sent to their death at a trial with very little evidence connecting them to the Braintree murder they were accused of. It was largely their ethnic origin, political beliefs, and suspicious behavior that led to their death. It made me wonder how I would react if I was accused of something I did not do. Any action could be viewed as suspicious in one way or another. If you refuse to speak for fear of your words being turned against you, your silence condemns you. If you speak too much they could twist the words around. If you cry they can blame it on guilt. There is more to court than guilty or innocent. A court is run by humans and therefore bound to have flaws, such as biased opinions. Immigration is such a controversial issue today. On the one hand, I would love to have everyone live in America under a democracy, but at the same time, there is no way to support a planet’s population in one country. It is illogical to think America can save the human race by allowing immigration. For every person taken in there are a million more starving. The best way for America to help others is to help them fix their own governments so that they can live as good as, or better, than us. At this point in time, the American economy is not as lively as it once was. America needs to fix herself before she can fix others. Sacco and Vanzetti really caught the attention of the public. Their case made people stop and think for the first time about how the courts were working. Instead of just assuming that the verdict was right, people were interested in how things worked out. Many of them firmly believed in Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence. The day they died found many Americans as well as others from around the world torn apart in grief and anger. A crowd of people had waited outside the prison to wait for news of their death, and when they discovered it they literally ripped at their clothing as they wept and cried out in the name of justice. This case really captured people’s attention and made them realize there was injustice in the government. This was a controversial time in America’s history.
Sacco and Vanzetti This chapter tells the story of just one case of injustice in the justice system. These two men were said to have been charged with murder and theft, but they were really being punished for their beliefs. This story is a great example of how prejudice can overcome a person’s sense of morality. Because the officer who arrested these two men had no real proof that they had committed a crime, he had to work as hard as he could to put away two men just because of his prejudice against them. It was said that America would welcome anyone escaping another country. But during this time when there were many more people than there were jobs, Americans were not so happy to see newcomers. This was another prejudice against these men. They were not American-born, and their loyalty to the country could not really be proven. Americans resented them because of who they were. Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists, so they didn’t believe in the government. This fact was greatly used against them in court because almost everyone else disagreed with their beliefs. They were both foreigners in America; they had come to this country to try to find better lives. Vanzetti was a fish peddler and Sacco was trying to help take care of his family. Another thing that the court used against the men was that when war broke out and the country needed men to fight, they both fled to Mexico so that they wouldn’t have to. While Katzmann didn’t understand this, I can see why they would not want to leave after they had only just gotten there. If this was the better life they were looking for, why would they want to leave and fight? But Katzmann thought that surely if they loved their new country, they would want to fight for her. I think it is unfair that the prosecutors didn’t listen to anything that Sacco and Vanzetti had to say. There were far more witnesses defending them than accusing them, but still no one would listen. The “witnesses” who claimed to have seen them commit the crime were said to have lied. They changed their story more than once, and the witnesses defending the men actually had believable stories. When it came down to it, the only evidence of their guilt was the way they acted when they were arrested. I think this is completely unfair because that is not a legitimate way to prove anyone guilty. Whether these men were guilty or not, they were still wronged because they were not given a fair trial, which is what the courts in America are supposed to do. I’m sure that even today there are still countless cases in which prejudice had more to do with the outcome than actual facts.
Sacco and Vanzetti caused a whirlwind of chaos across America. In chapter eleven, the thesis can be derived from the prejudice seen in the courtroom of the Sacco and Vanzetti case. Their cultural background caused them to be degraded by the jurors, and unfortunately, the judge. Both Italian born men were being forced to fight for their lives against a trial at a time where Nativism was a strongly controversial idea. White supremacy was on the mind of many males during this era of the roaring 20’s. Many judges and lawyers reviewed this case and it was clear that the juror Ripley’s quote, “Damn them, they ought to hang anyway,” was the mindset of many during this case trial. As many prominent men during this time strayed away from the principles of the founding fathers in 1776, the fight over the matter of guilty or innocent for Sacco and Vanzetti flourished into something much more. It became a fight between two nations; the arrayed immigrants, workers, and the poor being represented by the Sacco and Vanzetti versus the “men of Norfolk,” or rather, the men having a similar outlook to Thayer. It is my opinion that the men were clearly innocent, and that the Supreme Court should have taken notice of the pulsating prejudice values seen throughout this trial. After Celestino E. Medeiros sent in that letter to Sacco, and much investigation took place, it was obvious that the Morelli gang should have been considered as suspects. However, Thayer’s hate for these two men was a wonder to me. Where did his strong hate for these men come from? Even after the defense made a prevailing case on the Morelli gang, Thayer still refused to even consider the thought. Also, an initial thought that came to mind after reading the first few pages was what happened to Boda? Why was he not more involved in this trial? Thankfully for this case, many protocols and orders must be followed now before evidence and witnesses can become support for a case. This case became much more than innocent versus guilty, but rather an issue on the principles our founding fathers created in 1776. Riots and tears broke out after it was announced that the “good shoemaker and the poor fish peddler” were dead. This exemplifies just how much more this case called for. The unjust and unfair ways of the lawyers, judges, and leaders in this case will always be remembered.
Trey Flynn Thesis of Chapter 11: As illustrated in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the American justice system is incapable of preventing penetration of personal bias when the attitudes of the nation overpower the safeguards against an unfair trial. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the great force that triumphed over their right to a fair trial was a strong force of nationalism following WWI. The main indication that Sacco and Vanzetti were given an unfair trial is the lack of evidence that was presented at the trial. The American justice system was made so complex in order to protect the wrongly convicted, yet these two men were victimized by a wave of nationalism that should have been prevented from ever entering the courthouse. To understand why the two men were so strongly favored against, it is important to recognize the cause of the fears that possessed so many Americans, and even the judge. After WWI and the rise of Bolshevism, Americans were put on edge by their new responsibilities as a dominating world power. Because of this, the political tolerance usually associated with America was overpowered by paranoia of infiltration by radical groups. Because of this new sense of nationalism, Americans felt the need to defend their established way of life by declaring war on any minority with a dissenting opinion. Sacco and Vanzetti ere targeted because of their anarchist beliefs and their Italian heritage, and from the accusations placed upon them sprung dissention from minorities across America that recognized the injustice being done. The same convicting spirit of nationalism exists in milder forms today in immigration battles across the states. Americans feel threatened that Hispanic workers will dominate the job market, and thus they rally against illegal immigration. The underlying theme of the chapter is that nationalism can be detrimental to the American promise of tolerance when fear conquers the public perception of foreigners. Another important aspect of this chapter is the importance of public opinion even in a process as defined as a criminal trial. The nationwide contempt for Sacco and Vanzetti’s country of origin and political beliefs was more than enough to convict the two men and lead them to their untimely deaths. What we have to learn from injustices such as this is that procedure and impartiality should always be considred the first priority of any judge or juror of a criminal trial.
The overall thesis of chapter 11, "Sacco and Vanzetti," is that the fundamental statements of American history focus their attention on the fairness of the trial and the innocence or guilt of the people. It is very obvious that during the time of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, the judicial system was undergoing imperfection and prejudice was a large issue. At first, the two Italian men were arrested by a police officer because they appeared "suspicious characters" and were later given no room to explain their position, due to the immediate accusations made by prosecutors about the two men's beliefs as anarchists and reports by eyewitnesses about some Italians. Also, Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty due to their false accusations and the firearms they each were carrying. Yet, it is hard to prove the men guilty when there is no factual proof of the men's murder or robbery of Parmenter's money. I fully believe that the conviction had been influenced by the reputation of the accused. I think what struck me as the overall importance of this chapter was not to explain how our justice system had the opportunity to prove the two individuals guilty or innocent, but rather to show how America is supposed to be certain of a fair court system; yet in a situation like the Sacco and Vanzetti case, a conviction is sometimes based on personal opinion, prejudice morals, and limited beliefs. I found it so unbelievable that the police officers in charge of questioning Sacco and Vanzetti about the murder and robbery actually repeatedly inquired them about their personal beliefs and associates, rather than getting down to business and looking for answers about the crime. To me, this just gave Chief Stewart a jump start at proving them guilty because of who they were and what they believed in. Compared to the legal system of the 1920's, our legal system now should overwhelm any court rulings of that time and should make any member in the courts today feel confident of at least being given the right to defend his or her own case. In my opinion, murder is a crucial issue and should be taken seriously. However, unfair court rulings and the victims not having a say so of their defense is almost even more important. To my understanding, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed because of a biased judge ruling, only later for the issue to be brought back up and declared an unjust trial.
James La Russa The general thesis of "Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti" is in trying to protect our country from incriminating immigrants, the people of America can quickly look at a foreigner in a prejudiced manner. Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent of the crime which the courts quickly set on their heads, for suspecting an immigrant of a crime, who cannot defend himself because of the litteracy gap betweenn him and the courts, is quite easily accomplished. It is quite unfortunate that our courts unethically convince themselves that foreign men, such as Sacco and Vanzetti, are obviously guilty, because of their prejudiced outlooks. The strong influence of Nationalismon the courts of America created an uncontrolled biased opiinion for all Americans for some time after World War I. The court's quick manner in which it jumped to the conclusion that both men were guilty of an unforgivable crime proved that an unfair and biased trial was taking place in this "free" country. The author practically presented that the prosecutors of Sacco and Vanzetti were corrupt by indicating the several ways in which the prosecutors were planning on proving that these two innocen men were guilty. Plan after plan was shot down by the defense, for the truth shall prevail; unfortunately, the ultimatum reverts to the judge himself, who convicted these two immigrants of murder sentencing both of them to death by electric chair. Perhaps the courts were concerned about their safety, because of the recent ending of "the great war," but their concern should not involve throwing about the lives of innocent immigrants. Fortunately, After the Fact demonstrates many corrupt and fraudulent practices of the governmental system to help raise the awareness of many other politically involved people to speak out against this iniquitous form of insanity.
dear tracy, I completely 100% agree with you. Suspicious behaviour can be labeled as anything, whether you are crying or fighting against your accusers. Also, I share the same outlook as you do with today's immigrants. Everyone does deserve the right to live in America, but the question will always remain, Will our resources be enough to sustain a large nation?
After reading this chapter, it struck me how awful and too common this case of prejudice and judiciary flaws happens. These two regular Italian men were purely victimized to be the distraction and the scapegoat for the postwar fear of spies and infiltration of the country by immigrates and their beliefs. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested because they were “suspicious characters” but were never given the chance to prove themselves innocent. They were stereotyped by prosecutors, eyewitnesses, and police officers. They were accused of being anarchist. There was no rock solid proof of their supposed crime, but the prosecution used their carrying of a personal firearm to aid in their false accusations. Looking at this evidence, I see that the two men were clearly sentenced to death by a corrupt and unjust judiciary system. Chief Stewart used his personal prejudices against the two men instead of cold hard facts. The men’s nationality and their political views ended up getting them killed in the nation with a “just” judiciary system. The nation was going through a panic and scare at the end of World War II. Every American blamed Sacco and Vanzetti because there was a new sense of nationalism that made American want to protect the life they had established. They wanted to make any sort of bump or scare disappear as fast as possible no madder if it was just or not. The Sacco and Vanzetti cases show the role the view of the American public can have on the supposed “impartial” judiciary system. The fear the American had against foreigners consequently sentenced two innocent men to death. Thayer used his power to convict the two men according to his personal opinion. The public’s extreme sense of nationalism lead Thayer to convict and sentence Sacco and Vanzetti in order to satisfy the public opinion. The American Constitution clearly says that all have the right to a fair and speedy trial. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial was anything but fair. The judge was partial and unjust. The men never had a chance because they were not given their basic human right, a fair trial. In the end, the verdict was never proven beyond a shadow of doubt but merely a personal prejudice. Looking back at this chapter, I gathered that this was a step toward becoming a just judiciary system. I also feel that I better informed of America’s road to a just court system.
The thesis of Chapter 11 “Sacco and Vanzetti” is clearly that both men, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were victims of one of the most controversial episodes in American history. Because they immigrated from Italy to America to make some money for their families, they were considered by many to be aliens out to destroy the American way of life. Both Sacco and Vanzetti embodied the typical foreign menace American nativists feared the most because they were anarchists and foreigners. When I first started reading this selection, I had no idea who these two men were and how this one crime created such a scene. I found the first half of the chapter very boring and hard to understand. Of all the crimes in the world I didn’t understand why this one in particular brought up such a widespread controversy. Both men were convicted because many assumed that they were in charge of the murder of both Berardelli and Parmenter. Initially, they were arrested because they were both Italians and carried loaded revolvers on them. This one controversy gained international attention and roused many to support Sacco and Vanzetti’s cause; however, because this case took place after World War I, many citizen had a new pride for their country and didn’t way anyone to disturb the peace. Because the accused were assumed to be a threat to the American way of life, their right to a fair trial did not seem important to the judges and other leading officials. Also, both men did not have the option of being innocent until proven guilty. Both right to a fair trial and being innocent until proven guilty are all points stated in our Constitution constructed by our Founding Fathers. Judge Thayer was not in any way sympathetic to these men and did not want to give them any liberties that a typical American man would have if he were tried. Definitely, the trial record reveals that nativism influenced the way the judge ruled the court and the way the jury saw the defendants. After reading this selection, I was still a little confused. Even without the proper amount of evidence, the two innocent men were still unjustly convicted. The ultimate death of Sacco and Vanzetti was due to the fact of the flawed American judicial system and they were both anarchists and appeared to be threats to the standard American way of life.
Buddy, I agree with most everything you said about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial. Just because both men came into the country looking for higher paying jobs and a better way of life doesn’t mean they were trying to destroy the American way of life just because they were aliens and anarchists. They should have been given the right to a fair trial even though they were not native born Americans. Although I do agree with the quote the authours says about the tides of nativism rise and fall with the state of the national economy, I find this to be selfish of the American people. When the economy is in a good state, the American people want to use immigrants as a source of cheap labor such as the Chinese working on the railroad; however, when the economy is is a bad state many citizen want to push out the aliens in their own selfish interests.
The Sacco and Vanzetti case is one like many others in history. A recent one would be the case of the Duke lacrosse team. These two cases have one thing in common, prejudice. This prejudice is the thesis of this chapter. This one word makes even the highest court in the land a flawed system. These two men were indeed radical, but does that give society more in particluiar Judge Thayer the right to condemn them. The answer is simply no. In this nation the law is above any man or body of men. Then you might ask why did these men receive punishment for actions they did not commit. The reasoning is simple. The law is blind, but the man who wields it isn't. I am angered at how one man by the name of Judge Thayer can destroy the lives of two men just because one they are immigrants and two they think in a different way from the judge. What is the justice system in place for if not to protect the innocent. This just proves that evil can penetrate even the most sacred of institutions. One other thing that surprised me were how the immigrants of this country were treated at the time. Some groups were advocating a literacy test for immigrants to become citizens. This is supposedly the land of the free, and we were trying to keep those deemed "undesirable" out. Then comes the Red Scare. People were branded as Communists for no reason sometimes and thus became outcasts of society. Another thing that surprised me was how the trial took place. The judge basically let the prosecutor have free reign over his questioning. He would barrage Sacco who could barely speak English. This is atrocious and wrong. The jury pool was also corrupted which robs a fundamental right from the two on trial. Frankly its an unfair trial that should not have even taken place. The only good that could come from this case is its historical context as what not to do in the justice system. I was very disappointed to learn how America at this time was so fearful of anything different that it would shun or destroy it. Prejudice is an evil form of human perception. It blinds those that are good and defends those that are evil. This case is a prime example.
An incredibly dark time in American history is the Sacco- Vanzetti trial, in which two Italian immigrants were charged with crimes with which a true connection could not be made. The only connection that could be made was that they were Italian anarchists. To understand the importance of the fact that they were Italian anarchists, one must take the time period into context. In this time period of the early 20th century, a large nativist movement had taken over the United States. Americans had a hostile hatred for many ethnic groups. This was partly due to the resurrection of the KKK and America's involvement in World War I. This hatred for immigrants will come into play later in the trials. Sacco and Vanzetti were brought to trial for the Braintree Robbery and the Braintree murder. During the trials, Sacco was able to produce an alibi that he was still at work at the time of the crimes. He even used his time card to prove it. None of the alibis would stand, even though many people were able to confirm the alibis as being factual. During the trials, Katzmann really won over the Thayer, the judge, and the jury with his references to outside information ( the fact that both Sacco and Vanzetti were both Italian anarchists). He really won them over in a discriminatory fashion. He used their political beliefs and ethnicity against them. These facts could be considered irrelevant to the case, but Thayer felt the spirit of nativism rising in his heart. Thayer himself had just given a speech a few weeks earlier insisting that Bolshevism and anarchist beliefs were direct threats to the American beliefs and institutions. Both men were eventually found guilty and sentenced to execution by electrocution. The scary part of this story is that little evidence could be found against the men, yet the two men were found guilty on ridiculous claims. This fact worries me. How far does our justice system really protect us? The fundamental flaw of any justice system is the fact that one will always have a bias. This flaw is incredibly evident in this trial. Thayer and the jury allowed their bias to cloud their vision. When no real evidence was able to be produced, Katzmann used ethnic background and political beliefs to incriminate these seemingly innocent men. We will never be able to overcome this fundamental flaw in the judicial system because we are human. Sadly, two men witnessed this first hand, and it cost them their lives.
The epic tale Sacco and Vanzetti intrigued me greatly as I questioned the validity of the legal system as it clearly shows discrimination to the two defendants. The years following World War I have always substantially interested me with the economy prospering from the war and crime rate and gang activity booming. When I think of the 1920’s, I think of the prohibition, Al Capone, the infamous American gangster whose crimes revolved around the smuggling of alcohol; and the Red Scare. Also around this time, a vast number of Europeans immigrated to the United States, and many of them were German because of the recent fall of the Second Reich and the poverty that followed the recent war. Because so many immigrants are coming into the country, negative sentiments started to rise in the citizens of America which was bad news to Sacco and Vanzetti because it turns out that two robberies and a murder executed by Italian aliens have occurred in their vicinity and the two men received the blame because of their affiliation with a prime suspect. This entire ordeal vilifies the legal system as it breaks many of its own rules. First of all, the policemen violated habeas corpus which gives one the right from being unlawfully detained. I mean, what if a dog was murdered with chopsticks after being ran over by a badly driven car, and I was the closest Chinese guy to scene of the crime? But even worse, not only were they Italian aliens, but they were also anarchists. Because of the United States fear of the people’s opinion, they both were discriminated once again for their political views. The entire court case reminded me about Tom Robinson’s trial from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird because the evidence clearly showed that Robinson was no guilty just like the ambiguous evidence for Sacco’s and Vanzetti’s trial. All the evidence that could be accumulated against the two men was a couple of unreliable witnesses and very uncertain ballistics details involved in the murders. Also, the judge continued on about the conscience of guilt in the two men, but that can easily be justified by the fact they both were hiding the fact that they were anarchists who were probably more resented than immigrants. But apparently, as long as the defendants are Italian aliens and anarchists, the poor amount of evidence was enough to convict the two men. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the court needed solid, without a shadow of a doubt evidence to convict the defendants. I cannot vouch whether the two men were guilty or not because sometimes the glove does not fit.
The epic tale Sacco and Vanzetti intrigued me greatly as I questioned the validity of the legal system as it clearly shows discrimination to the two defendants. The years following World War I have always substantially interested me with the economy prospering from the war and crime rate and gang activity booming. When I think of the 1920’s, I think of the prohibition, Al Capone, the infamous American gangster whose crimes revolved around the smuggling of alcohol; and the Red Scare. Also around this time, a vast number of Europeans immigrated to the United States, and many of them were German because of the recent fall of the Second Reich and the poverty that followed the recent war. Because so many immigrants are coming into the country, negative sentiments started to rise in the citizens of America which was bad news to Sacco and Vanzetti because it turns out that two robberies and a murder executed by Italian aliens have occurred in their vicinity and the two men received the blame because of their affiliation with a prime suspect. This entire ordeal vilifies the legal system as it breaks many of its own rules. First of all, the policemen violated habeas corpus which gives one the right from being unlawfully detained. I mean, what if a dog was murdered with chopsticks after being ran over by a badly driven car, and I was the closest Chinese guy to scene of the crime? But even worse, not only were they Italian aliens, but they were also anarchists. Because of the United States fear of the people’s opinion, they both were discriminated once again for their political views. The entire court case reminded me about Tom Robinson’s trial from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird because the evidence clearly showed that Robinson was no guilty just like the ambiguous evidence for Sacco’s and Vanzetti’s trial. All the evidence that could be accumulated against the two men was a couple of unreliable witnesses and very uncertain ballistics details involved in the murders. Also, the judge continued on about the conscience of guilt in the two men, but that can easily be justified by the fact they both were hiding the fact that they were anarchists who were probably more resented than immigrants. But apparently, as long as the defendants are Italian aliens and anarchists, the poor amount of evidence was enough to convict the two men. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the court needed solid, without a shadow of a doubt evidence to convict the defendants. I cannot vouch whether the two men were guilty or not because sometimes the glove does not fit.
When I first began reading chapter eleven on “Sacco and Vanzetti,” I had recently read something about these two individuals before, but I had no idea that these two Italian men were accused of a robbery and murdering someone. As I was reading, I first thought that these two men were completely guilty for the crime they committed, and didn’t feel bad for them one bit. But as the chapter continued, I changed my mind very quickly. Last year in U.S. history, I remember briefly reading about Sacco and Vanzetti and the Red Scare, but it was interesting to be able to read in detail about the case. One of the things that I got out of this chapter is that these two men weren’t being punished or judged for the crime they committed, but for what they believed in. Not only were they being judged for their beliefs, but they were in a country that wasn’t satisfied with immigrants. One thing that I found interesting from this chapter is that when the police were trying to identify these two men, they didn’t use a lineup, but they made them pose as bandits. During this time, many Americans wanted Sacco and Vanzetti to be prosecuted. Personally, I didn’t think the case of Sacco and Vanzetti was fair because you cant judge someone for their beliefs and say they were guilty of a crime they didn’t commit. These could have been two innocent men that were punished for something they didn’t even do and their lives could be ruined. There was only one piece of evidence in this chapter that made me wonder for a second if they really were guilty was when they carried guns and were getting passports made to leave the country. In the end, no one will ever know if these two men were really guilty. The court may be right for accusing them of a robbery and murdering someone, or they could have cost two innocent men lives to be ruined.
After reading about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, I believe that the thesis of this chapter is that there were flaws in the court system because people involved in the case put their personal opinions about foreigners ahead of the evidence. After World War I, crime became increasingly more common. Armed robberies happened more frequently which meant wealthy people had to keep a close watch over their money to make sure it was not stolen. Robbery was not the only crime being committed during the time following WWI; murder also occurred. One day in the early 1920s, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchists, became suspects in the murder trial of Alessandro Berardelli. They were arrested because they were "suspicious characters." I believe that it was not fair for them to be arrested without proof that they were guilty. They were treated unfairly because they were foreigners. For example, they were never told during the first two days why they were arrested. It seemed like the jurors and the judge thought they did not have to follow the typical court room procedures in this case because of Sacco and Vanzetti's political beliefs and backgrounds. I think they should have been treated the same as any other person on trial. On the day Vanzetti was to be sentenced, he stood before Judge Thayer and delivered a heart-felt speech. I actually believed almost every word he said. I guess that makes him a good, persuasive speaker, or me a really gullible listener. After Vanzetti's speech, Thayer declared the two men guilty. I believe that part of the reason for this final decision was because they were Italian anarchist. The evidence against them was very weak and unconvincing, but the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were immigrants was enough evidence for Judge Thayer to announce that they were guilty. Unfortunately, during the time that Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested, a nativist movement was sweeping across the country. People began to despise foreigners and blame them for all of the problems in the economy. This was not fair to the immigrants. They should not be blamed for the decline of the economy unless they actually had something to do with it. This strong sense of nativism also led to more strikes in the work force. Some of the strikes were recorded to last over four months. A third of an entire year is a very long time, especially for a strike. I believe that the Sacco and Vanzetti trial was significant and very helpful for our country. It "forced the nation to ask who in their own times best embodies the principles of freedom and equality inherited from 1776" (286). By the end of the trial, it was no longer a question of quilt or innocence. In my opinion, it had become a fight for justice and equality. It was almost like a wake-up call for some Americans. They were beginning to realize that the nation was divided, and it was time for that to change.
After reading this chapter I concluded that no matter how hard we strive to make a system non-biased there are always flaws. In this instance, it may have cost two innocent men their lives. Prior to reading Chapter 11, “Sacco and Vanzetti”, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were just two names to me. I was completely unaware that these two men had to undergo a great deal of prejudice and hatred in the United States justice system. After reading, “Sacco and Vanzetti” my outlook on the justice system here in the United States has been tainted. I have always thought that our justice system was supposed to be run by the idea that all are innocent until proven guilty in a just trial. Sacco and Vanzetti were both Italian immigrants who were convicted of robbery and the murder of the paymaster and his assistant of the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in Massachusetts. In reading this chapter it is apparent that both Sacco and Vanzetti were being convicted because of their nationality and political beliefs. The fact that they were both immigrants at the time was also a major disadvantage. These men were simply given an unfair trial. Instead of the trial being based on hard evidence, the trial was practically based on prejudice, political views, and the nationality of the two men. There are several references in the chapter that indicate that there was not hard evidence to connect the two men with the murders. Although, based on Sacco and Vanzetti’s being self proclaimed anarchists and having revolvers and ammunition on their person at the time of their arrests allowed them to be used as a scapegoat for the robbery and murder. It is blatantly obvious that the prosecution was having a difficult time making a case. Their “eyewitnesses” statements were not consistent in placing the two men at the crime scene, and there was also some discrepancy in the ballistics evidence. The time period during which the trial occurred was also a factor that was detrimental to the outcome for Sacco and Vanzetti. It was extremely unfortunate that the judge that proceeded over the trial believed that the defendants were guilty prior to the murder trial. Instead of focusing on accurate evidence, the prosecution based the case primarily on “consciousness of guilt”. In my opinion, to try to convict someone of murder just because they act guilty is ludicrous. In summary, this trial was an insult to our forefathers who set laws in place to insure that all people would be given a fair trial.
Caleb, I agree with you when you say that if more time had been spent on the case, the answer to whether the men were innocent or guilty would have been discovered. But since everyone wasted time hating Sacco and Vanzetti instead of actually further investigating the crime, there was really no way that they could truly be proven guilty. Maybe if people had actually tried to solve the case, they wouldn't have been accused of a crime they didn't commit, and a lot less time would have been wasted.
After reading Chapter 11 – Sacco and Vanzetti, I immediately started questioning the reliability of the United States government. To think that two men lost their lives because of their ethnicity and not because of any hard evidence is something that is so unfortunate, but sadly not shocking seeing as it’s the American government we are talking about. This chapter to me shows the true beginning of the corruption of the United States court systems, and the diminishing voice of the people of the United States. During this time Americans started to feel an increased sense of Patriotism, while simultaneously developing their prejudice towards everything “un-American.” In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Thayer, the judge, did not prosecute them on the charges of robbery and murder, but instead punished them for their ethnicity and political beliefs (being Italian anarchists was suddenly a justifiable reason for the execution of a human being). But what makes this case even more sickening is that against the beliefs of these men, Thayer weighed his own values and beliefs. Weeks before the trial, Thayer was actively giving speeches that promoted the idea that anarchist beliefs were a large threat to the American way of life. For me, this case gave birth to many questions about the government that I live under. How much can I actually rely on the United States government to protect me inside the four walls of a court room? Not only that, but how can I be so sure that I’m safe in my own country when the government has the power to easily regulate everything that I do? The main point is that even in a setting where things are to be analyzed based on no personal opinion; there will always be a chance of a personal bias upon the judge. I find it sad that at some point you have to question your own free will, not even in the aspect of religion, but instead at the feet of other people (who were born in the same fashion as you were).
Chapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti is not about how guilty these two men were but more about the bias and unfair treatment that occurred in the courtroom. In years following World War I, crime statistics were greatly increased. Anyone that had large amounts of money had reasons to worry. On the beautiful spring day of April 15, 1920, Alessandro Berardelli was not careful enough. He was on his way to the lower factory building to get money and was suddenly shot dead. A few weeks later two Italians by the names of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were arrested for his murder. When they asked why they were arrested they were told that they were “suspicious characters.” I think were they treated completely unfair. The police had no real evidence to arrest them. I think that is totally unjust and partial. I strongly believe that if they had been native born Americans that the Bridgewater police would not have arrested them. This chapter was also a definite wake up call to me. It showed me how prejudice people really are. An example of one of these bias people is the trial judge Webster Thayer. It is astounding to me how much he got away with. When there was possible evidence that could have proved Sacco and Vanzetti innocent Thayer chose not to reopen the case. I do not understand how he was allowed to just do whatever he wanted. He was allowed to put his own beliefs before actual truth and evidence. He even allowed subjects to be talked about in the courtroom that would not normally be allowed because of it not having relevance to the case. I do not understand how anyone could accuse someone of something they know they did not do and then make them lose their own life for it. I think another prejudice man that is involved in this case is Fred Moore. Moore was the chief defense counsel and was not known for a hard worker. When it came to trial, he wanted all the credit and to play the major role. I disagreed with Moore’s decision of who was placed on the jury. There was not a single foreign name on the juror’s list. I find that to be very unjustly and just plain wrong. Another thing I noticed in this chapter is the one question it kept asking. No one could figure out why this case had become the focal point of one of the most controversial episodes in America. I think it was because it involved foreigners. Some people might have thought it was a big deal because they were so mad and so against foreigners. Other people might have though it to be such a notable case because of how unjust and prejudice it was. Either way the case of Sacco and Vanzetti will not soon be forgotten.
To WRAB I have just finished reading your post, and I am interested in many points within your work. I really want to know what makes you believe that Sacco and Vanzetti did not commit the crime because although not enough evidence was gathered to surely convince anyone who has common sense, there is still the possibility that the two men were in fact the killers and robbers. Sometimes the glove just does not fit. Nevertheless, I could not have put this social injustice in the Sacco and Vanzetti incident in such good words as yours. There is no doubt that social injustices thrived in the early 1900’s, but are you not amazed that it such sentiments are still alive this very day? Indeed, the society that the United States runs by needs dire repairs as prejudice and discrimination still exists in the modern day.
Often times on a lazy Saturday or a homework-free afternoon, I entertain myself, watching high speed chases and drug busts on the television show Cops. While not every case begins the same way, they all end with two or three criminals handcuffed to the ground listening to their Miranda rights. Unfortunately, the American law enforcement system did not always use to be this routine and just. In fact, “Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti” provides a perfect example of the misuse of justice that proves the chapter’s thesis: the courts system of the 1920s was seriously flawed by prejudice and individual opinions. To understand the injustice Sacco and Vanzetti faced, the reader must first understand both the crime they were allegedly involved in and the issues concerning the country at the time. While Sacco and Vanzetti were in danger of imprisonment for murder and robbery, they faced the most danger because of the beliefs and heritage. Italian anarchist immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti lived in a nationalistic post World War I America where citizen despised foreigners for invading their country and taking their jobs. With the Red Scare also fresh on their minds, Americans sought to remove any radicalists from their country. These two recent events are what eventually led to the conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti, as there was not enough evidence alone to prove them guilty. I am appalled to see Americans use the same unethical principles in removing unwanted foreigners that the Nazis employed only a few short decades later. Judge Thayer allowed his political beliefs and distain for anarchists to cloud his judgment and decide a case that clearly lacked substantial evidence of guilt because he merely wanted to “convict these men because they were ‘reds.’” Just as Nazis blamed Jews for criminal activity and flaws in the German government, sentencing them to death as punishment, Thayer blamed these anarchists for crimes they may not have committed, eventually sentencing them to their deaths. I was also appalled to find that few checks and balances that are employed in other governmental systems could be found in the court system. Because Thayer had to approve all appeals for the case, Sacco and Vanzetti were denied more than ten times a trial with new and hopefully more impartial judges and juries. Even when significant new evidence appeared that could prove the two men innocent, Thayer was able to reject their appeal. Furthermore, because of the lack of checks, Judge Thayer and District Attorney Katzmann were even able to get away with “[violating] the cannons of judicial discretion” and manipulating cross-examinations to misrepresent the defendants motives. Additionally, another flaw in the court system became apparent with Sacco and Vanzetti’s jury of peers. As another safeguard against too-powerful, corrupt judicial officials pushing their own agendas, the court is supposed to provide the defendants with a jury of their peers. However, in Sacco and Vanzetti’s case, they were given a jury of natural citizens with disgust for radicalists, not a jury of immigrants with varied political views. Although lives were lost in this battle for justice, the Sacco and Vanzetti case was essential to the advancement and improvement to the American government. The case opened the eyes of many Americans and demonstrated to them the unequal and unconstitutional prejudices that the government was letting affect the courts. By the end of the trials and executions, the American population was aware, that for the democracy of the United States to survive, these tragic flaws must be fixed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteReed Hancock
ReplyDeleteAP Government
Belcher
Summer 2010
Sacco and Vanzetti
Prejudice has taken place throughout time even in this country founded on freedom. The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti has remained a controversial point in our history because it illustrates both our prejudices and our freedoms. Our freedoms are illustrated by our legal system in action and our prejudices are illustrated by the actions of people influenced by their prejudices. These people act not in ways consistent with their duties to uphold the laws and freedoms upon which our country was based. They use their positions to advance their prejudice and fears.
I found the discussion of nativism is the chapter very compelling. We tend to think of America as the great “melting pot”. We often think of our country as a place where we have welcomed all from their native homelands in times of trouble, such as political persecution and famine. However, it is apparent from the story that economic times can dictate the welcoming attitude of Americans toward immigrant groups.
While Sacco and Vanzetti appear to be victims of political and social prejudices of the times their actions placed them squarely in the bullseye. They were not on trial for their anarchist beliefs and actions but for robbery and murder. Whatever their political associations, our legal system should insure a fair trial. And in the absence of a fair trial our appeals process should protect a defendant’s rights. I found it compelling that most Americans trust in our trail systems and we make sure who is guilty is punished and who is not guilty is freed. In this specific case and likely other similar cases, people were convicted because who they are rather than what they may have done.
I found it hard not to sympathize with Sacco and Vanzetti because the author made them sound like men that were just trying to find a better life by working in America even though they did not share the same beliefs. By the end of the book though I had a hard time sympathizing with them because it appears their anarchist beliefs were not just philosophical, but tended to be subversive.
In the end, it appears our justice system failed. I would like to think that in today’s world, if a similar trial was to take place, our current judicial process would prevent such prejudice to take place. Otherwise, our appeals process would work to allow for new evidence and findings to insure a correct verdict.
The thesis of chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti is that guilt verses innocence was not really the issue in the Sacco and Vanzetti case; the issue was the debate over who or what best exemplified the precious words of our founding fathers in 1776. This case split the nation into two groups: Sacco and Vanzetti, the immigrants, workers, and poor against Judge Thayer, the “men of Norfolk”, the Protestant establishment, and those people who would not tolerate foreigners in America. The Sacco and Vanzetti case of the 1920s stretched the fundamental tensions of the American society. Some people, such as John Dos Passos, felt as though “America our nation has been beaten by strangers who have turned out language inside out who have taken the clean words our Fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul..” The time period in which the case first started to gain public attention was a time when nativism was at an all time high. Americans were hostile towards immigrants and their foreign political ideas because they feared these ideas were a threat to their cherished way of life. One of the most interesting points I found in this reading was John Higham’s three major attitudes of the Anericans in the 1920s:Anti-Catholicism, antiradicalism, and Anglo-Saxon nationalism. Anti-Catholicism is the Protestants distrust of the Catholic Church and the pope. Antiradicalism was the Americans’ association of Marxism, socialism, and anarchism with violence, terrorism, and Anti-Americanism. This antiradicalism was stemmed from the fear that the Bosheviks, Reds, and anarchists would try to take over America. Organizations such as the Ku Klux were born from, this idea. The American public linked anarchists with acts of murder, robbery, and terrorism, so when the Italian anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were labeled as suspects the public rallied to have them convicted. The Americans at this time regarded all radicals as criminals, and I agree with the author that this was the biggest reason why Thayer convicted Sacco and Vanzetti. Judge Thayer was prejudiced against the Italian anarchists before the defense could even present its side. All he needed was for Katzmann to provide him with enough evidence to convince the jury. Katzmann had three categories of evidence, two of which in my opinion were a failure. First Katzmann used eyewitness identification. Katzmann had three witnesses to testify against Sacco all of which had been caught in various lies and changed their stories several times. The defense on the other hand had seventeen legitimate witnesses. I think that this was the defense’s first small victory. Next, Katzmann used ballistics evidence to prove that Sacco’s gun fired the fatal shot of Mr. Berardelli. Katzmann’s experts however answered the question with ambiguity and told the jury that the pistol was similar to Sacco’s and could possibly be the same, but they could not be positive. The defense’s experts though said with certainty that Sacco’s gun did not fire that shot. They also went on to prove that Vanzetti had not in fact taken Berardelli’s gun because Vanzetti’s pistol was a .38 and Berardelli’s was a .32 caliber. Since obviously, the defense had weakened Katzmann’s ballistics evidence, Katzmann focused the case on the men’s consciousness of guilt, evasiveness upon arrest, and their radical political beliefs. And this I believe shows the biggest injustice of our law system because Judge Thayer based his conviction off of speculation and the suspects’ irrelevant political beliefs. Judge Thayer and the jury were simply making a point out of this case by condemning these foreigners regardless of their guilt or innocence. I think the author’s greatest point in this reading is that historians can use speculations while the law cannot justly use them; the law is supposed to throw speculation and base their decision off facts only. Obviously, this was not the case with Judge Thayer and his jury.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis of Chapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti is that despite the intent of the justice system sometimes prejudices in the courtroom, like the judge’s prejudice against Sacco and Vanzetti, can affect the outcome of a case. One thing I have learned from reading this book is that history goes beyond what is in textbooks. To understand the full history of an event, the story must be presented from every side. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the story goes beyond the judge’s ruling, and their death by electric chair. One part that is often left out, and that I found interesting is that instead of using a lineup to identify the men officers made them stand alone in the middle of a room and pose as bandits. During the trial, there was a lack of evidence against both men; however, the decision to prosecute the two men still stood. Many Americans at this time wanted the two men prosecuted because of their alien status in America. The two men were Italian in a country where during this time immigration was looked down upon. Foreigner’s political ideas were perceived as a threat to the American way of life. I do not think it is right that the court had a prejudice against foreigners at this time. The fact that these men were from another country does not mean that they are guilty of a crime. When all of the evidence is presented, despite the courts final ruling, these men appear innocent of the crimes they were charged with. I disagree with the ruling against the two men; however, I do not think that these men were completely innocent. The men were guilty of other crimes, and had connections to the anarchist community. The men were not tried for these crimes though, but crimes that they didn’t commit. Sacco understood that because of his ties with the anarchist community and what he believed in he was guilty. He stated “If I was arrested because of the Idea I am glad to suffer. If I must I will die for it. But they have arrested me for a gunman gob.” The story told in chapter 11 though, is not whether the two men were guilty or innocent, for Sacco and Vanzetti are the only two men who truly know what they are guilty of. Chapter 11 uses these men to tell a story about the American legal system and the flaws in the system that are capable of putting innocent people in jail.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading “Sacco and Vanzetti”, I felt bad for the two men; after reviewing all of the evidence, I could not help but think that these two foreigners were innocent and it was because of their political beliefs and cultural background that they were condemned of a crime they did not commit. I could not help but think that if Sacco and Vanzetti lived about eighty years later, they would be found innocent of the crime because the evidence of them not committing the crime is so strong. They would also not be found guilty because I believe they were found guilty because the judge and other people in charge of the case wanted them to go to prison because the two men were foreigners and were anarchist, meaning they did not believe in American capitalism. After reading this chapter and learning more about how foreigners were treated during the early 20th century, I can’t help but feel bad for people like Sacco and Vanzetti who were prejudiced because of their alien background and political beliefs, but at the same time I feel lucky that I live in a time of American history where people are becoming more and more tolerant of political and cultural backgrounds. Reading stories like the one of Sacco and Vanzetti can show young readers that America was once a place full of people who strongly prejudiced minorities and how far America has come to being a more open minded and tolerant nation. I personally love reading about trial cases, so I am genuinely interested why Sacco and Vanzetti were keeping guns with them and why they lied to the police about where they really were when the crime occurred. This trial is the prime example of how even though America is known as the land that provides “freedom and opportunity”, America still had times when they were unfair to different ethnic groups. I read about the Sacco and Venzetti story last year in AP U.S History, but I did not realize until after reading this chapter how unfair the trial really was and how crazy the Red Scare was at the dawn of the 20th century. On one hand I understand why some of the public was scared of foreigners because they were afraid the Communists would try to take over America, but at the same time they should not have taken their fear out on innocent people like Sacco and Vanzetti.
ReplyDeleteThe Sacco and Vanzetti trial displays the ignorant Nativism of Americans throughout history and during this time period. I always knew that Americans had a strong sense of defensive nationalism, but this reading changed my perspective altogether. After reading this section, I was shocked that such a severe sentence could be acquitted to two foreigners without clear and abundant evidence. The prosecutors were much more concerned with who the defendants were and what they believed rather than if they actually did anything wrong. Unfortunately, Sacco and Vanzetti happened to have their trial during the Red Scare in which the American public had begun to associate bad deeds with anarchists. I believe that Sacco and Vanzetti’s sentence was clear before the trial even started. This was a period in time where foreigners were stereotyped. They were both anarchists who spoke little English, and thus were considered to be criminals. I find it astounding that during the first two days of questioning, the men were not asked about the robbery, but about their political beliefs and associates. This only reinforces my opinion that the prosecutors were focusing on the background of the men rather than the crime. The trial not only lacked enough evidence to create a death sentence, but it also failed to meet the minimum standards of fairness. When police asked witnesses to identify the men, they dressed them up as bandits and made them pose. This is outrageous and is not fair at all. There were no fingerprints, the witness testimonies were all fake and contradicted, and the ballistics evidence did not prove enough to seal the trial, so Katzmann relied on “consciousness of guilt” which I believe is ridiculous to indict a death sentence. Despite this, the defense still created a solid argument explaining Sacco and Vanzetti’s mysterious behavior. I believe that there was no longer enough evidence for the trial to continue, and it should have been stopped. However, the trial was overseen by many prejudice men. Katzmann, the prosecutor, was a politically ambitious man with a tenacious and arrogant style. He knew that he had a weak case, but the trial was an enormous opportunity that he could not miss. He proceeded to convict these two men who had no criminal record because he had a warm feeling in his heart. Chief Justice John Aiken and Judge Thayer were men who believed unequivocally in the defendant’s guilt. They both ignored Sacco and Vanzetti’s explanations, and I believe this trial was not even remotely fair. I believe that their trial was big enough to invoke a national controversy and question the justice system during this period of time.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti:
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading this chapter my first thought was who are these people. I was immediately intrigued with the story and was absolutely such with out a doubt that these two men were guilty of this crime. After further reading I suddenly felt really bad for these two poor men who really had no reason for doing anything wrong besides the fact of their background. The main topic in chapter eleven is the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti while also talking about the effect of the immigrants moving into America in the nineteen twenties during the Red Scare. This chapter also focuses on the legal aspect going back in the case trying to solve it the way we would think about it today. I have learned about the Red Scare before in history class but it was interesting to read this story where these two people were judged not on what crime they did or did not commit , but mostly on where they came from and their beliefs. You can see the way Americans in this time period treated the immigrants after the war over and jobs were taken. They were threatening the American people making tension with the immigrants. They were afraid the foreigners would weaken the gene pool or destroy their cherished way of life. All of this had a major impact on the result of the Sacco Vanzetti trial because Sacco and Vanzetti both fit the stereotypes that nativists had perfectly. Another thing was the fact that Vanzetti was a radical and proud of it. It was not that they completely looked guilty of murder, but they were very suspicious acting having guns and seen before the crime getting pass ports and knowing Mike Boda and picking up his car. They could not speak English very well thus making them that much more foreign and that much more guilty. Even though if I lived in this time period I would probably feel the same about the foreigners, I still was shocked of such an intense sentence with such little evidence. The little evidence that Katzmann had was very weak and relied on “consciousness of guilt” which is ridiculous and unfair. This shows how far the legal system in America has come. I think the trial shows us the true reason for a fair trial and even though I don’t believe these two men should have died with such little cause I do think that the outcome has influenced American history.
The thesis of the chapter, “Sacco and Vanzetti,” is that fear can change the outcome of any situation. After World War I, many Americans believed that any ongoing fear, especially the fear of immigrants, could be a threat to the “American way of life,” and the issues needed to be handled. Even though the evidence proves Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, the court convicted both men of murder because they both believed in anarchism, meaning both men believed in the abolishment of all government, which Americans feared. A person should not be convicted of a crime because of their backgrounds and beliefs; every person should be able to believe and think whatever they like without people fearing them. In my opinion, every person has the right to opinions because every living person has them. I understand how Americans could have feared the new flow of immigrants into the United States, but fear is no reason to convict innocent men for a crime because they both are aliens to a country. People do not need to stereotype a certain group of people. If I were to move abroad to a new country, I would not want to be treated as if I am a criminal and cannot be trusted. While reading the chapter, emotions of sympathy and anger filled within me because I felt empathy for both men and anger at the United States Judicial System. Both Sacco and Vanzetti traveled to the United States looking for a better life in order for higher paying jobs, but because they were immigrants, both were convicted and killed of the murder and robbery of Alessandro Berardelli. This is not right. While reading the chapter, one statement was interesting to me: the three major attitudes of Americans throughout history. John Higham identified the three major attitudes of the American people as anti-Catholicism, antiradicalism, and Anglo- Saxon nationalism. Before reading this statement, I never thought about the attitudes of the American people in the past, but after looking back into many of my history classes, I now realize that these three attitudes are the major ones in American history. The authors state, “The tides of nativism tend to rise and fall with the fortunes of the nation.” After thinking, this quotation is accurate; I agree with the Americans whose minds changed about immigration because of the condition of their country because I would not want immigrants coming into the county during tough times and taking my job. Every immigrant has to acquire a job in order to support himself, and jobs do not come available very often. Up until the end of reading the chapter, I believed Sacco and Vanzetti to be innocent with hardly any doubt about it, but after reading the last two pages of the chapter, I am unsure of whether both men are innocent or guilty. Paul Avrich uncovered a great deal of evidence, which puts Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence into question. The one piece of evidence at the end of the chapter that was bold to me is when Vanzetti told Judge Thayer, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” This quote puts Sacco and Vanzetti’s character into question.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, I, like you, thought before reading the chapter that Sacco and Vanzetti were definately guilty of their crime; I never really understood why this case was so famous. But after reading the chapter, I realize like you that this trial is a prime example of how life for immigrants was during the Red Scare. I just thought they were being treated unfairly because they had radical politicl views, but I definately agree with you that some of the American public was scared that having foreigners in America might change America's daily life with their foreign customs and they might take some of the "American tradition" out of America. These Americans are forgetting, though, they it was because of foreign traditions and customs that America had the customs it had back then. Like you I am also glad American trials are much more fair and honest today; now thankfully judges will not condemn you guilty if there is not much evidence against you and if you come from a certain ethical background. This chapter makes me all the more thankful that I live in a time in American history where people are becoming less and less racist towards different cultural and eithical backgrounds.
ReplyDeletesaid...
ReplyDeleteBefore this reading assignment, the names Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti meant nothing to me. I might have recalled hearing their names alluded to on television or in a book, but I never would have associated these two men with a serious miscarriage of justice. During this era, the early 1920s, the United States had just emerged from World War I and was experiencing a post-war economic boom. As a result of this economic success, immigrants began pouring into America and were searching for jobs and often taking the jobs of native-born American workers. The majority of this influx of workers included immigrants from Eastern Europe who were hoping to escape their impoverished nation or who were hoping to earn money in the United States and then return to their respective homelands. The immigrants fleeing to the United States were most often Polish, Italian, and Jewish. The American citizens were most concerned with these non-Anglo Saxon immigrants, and the fact that these “second wave” immigrants were associated with Catholicism, anarchists, and communists. All of these elements contributed to the United States citizens’ hatred and prejudice toward these immigrants. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial enabled nativists to use the Italian anarchists as a scapegoat for the growing economic competition and the mounting unease of radical movements. Personally, the question is not so much whether Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent, but rather were the courts, judges, and jurors corrupt enough to allow this injustice to take place. In addition, as American citizens, who were such staunch believers in the principles of the founding fathers of their nation, how were they able to dismiss the basis of what their country had stood for since her birth in 1776? In my opinion, the answer is fear, fear of the foreigner, fear of the radical, fear of the competition, and fear of the unknown. Some Americans were so willing to believe the unfounded rumors that they were described by their fellow citizens that they automatically ruled out the possibility of innocence. Ultimately, it was less the jurors’ and more the public’s prejudice and need to charge and punish someone that convicted Sacco and Vanzetti. According to the reading, key eyewitnesses at trial gave testimony stating that they spotted Sacco and Vanzetti at the scene of the crime only to recant their statements and then subsequently retract their recant. The conflicting physical evidence and witness testimony proved to be problematic for the prosecution and allowed the defense to point out the discrepancies to the defense’s benefit. Nevertheless, in the courtroom, this “advantage” proved to change nothing; however, eventually, in the eyes of the public, these blunders by the prosecution gave the public a more open mind regarding the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti. In a modern day court, the contradictions and inconsistencies of key witnesses might be enough to be granted an appeal. However, in the biased, nationalist courts of the 1920s, it was not enough to save the Italians. Although the American judicial system has its flaws and crooked judges and prosecutors do exist, I also believe it is the cases like Sacco and Vanzetti, Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson that have shaped the United States judicial system into what is today, an emblem of impartiality and legitimacy.
Sacco and Vanzetti
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were considered convicts because they were accused of murdering two men during an armed robbery in Massachusetts. However, in my mind, Sacco and Vanzetti actually also victims in the story. Victims of an unfair trial and victims of prejudice.
In no way, shape, or form am I trying to make Sacco and Vanzetti out to be good guys or anything, but all of the controversy that went on in the trials make me a little disappointed in the court system we had in the 1920s. If the evidence is clear and strong enough to sentence them to death, then fine. But at least give the men a fair trial, they deserve at least that.
The unjust acts began very soon off of the accusation. Early in the case, when the witnesses were asked to identify the two men who committed the robbery, rather than using a lineup, Sacco and Vanzetti were forced to stand alone in the middle of a room in a bandit position. I don't care who you are, there is no way that can be justified. It is simply unfair. The discrepancies did not stop here. Judges who were friends of the prosecuting attorney, and who had already believed in the defendants' guilt were let on to the trial, and the fact that the convicts were anarchists seemed to be at the front of everyone's mind. It was wrong for the prosecutor to attempt to cloud people's judgment with his constant reminders that Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists, and it was also wrong for the people to allow them to cloud their judgment. The trial should be decided on hard evidence such as ballistics, not by race and government views.
I must admit, however, that the lying that Sacco and Vanzetti did really hurt their credibility and chances of coming out good in the trial. I understand that they lied out of fear of getting deported, but there is no excuse for lying under police questioning in my opinion. Then there is no way of really knowing if what the person is saying is the truth or not the rest of the time he speaks. This is where Katzmann got his “guilt of consciousness” evidence from, which may could have been avoided had Sacco and Vanzetti told the truth from the get go.
The bottom line is that nobody knows for absolute certainty if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or not. The court could have been right, and probably were, but there is also a chance that they cost two innocent men their lives, and thats not a chance the court system should ever take. There is a saying, “innocent until proven guilty,” but it seems as if in this instance, it was the opposite. It seemed as if everyone assumed that the Italian anarchists were guilty, and waited for someone to try to prove their innocence. I just think that these men were denied their right to a fair trial, and I hope that another controversy of this magnitude doesn't show up in court again anytime in the new future.
"EmilyEspy4, First, there are two main themes to my response: to say that i agree with you on the fact that the conviction of Sacco and CO. was filled with bias and unfair trial practices and that this reading was enlightening. however, my Second point deals with the latter half of your response, the one i feel is an idealistic view of the world and country we live in. 1(the unfairness of the trial, as told by the story, and the cruelty put upon the defendants IS because of the social-political atmosphere of the time (red scare) America was scared, and after what happened in Russia, maybe rightfully so.) 2(To start you said "that America was once a place full of people who strongly prejudiced minorities" in conjunction with stating that Sacco and Vanzetti would have probably been found innocent today. Though it is true they would have had a fairer trial today, i don't really believe it would be because of the impartiality of the American government. Keep in mind that, as compared to then, when something major happens in America, it is seen all over the world. If such a trial was to happen today, they would receive financial support from private donors all around the world-helping their defense case. Now i ask you and whoever reads this to think about the circumstances today. Anarchy is not the 'bad word.' Instead we hear tings like Illegal immigrant, Socialist, Communist, and most misunderstood MUSLIM. You America has become more tolerant and open minded, and i agree. Please don't assume the battle for understanding and equality is over. For instance in Arizona an immigration law still being debated-which i don't completely disagree with-gives police officials the authority to stop and check ANY citizen for illegal immigrant papers. Hopefully this will lead to better border control but at the moment legal citizens of Hispanic, and oriental descent are SCARED. They realize that the police man has a much greater chance of stopping them because they fit the racial profile, because they have a characteristic look about them. They are not judged on the fact that most of them are legal residents of this great nation, nor that they are productive members of society with hopes, ideas, dreams for their children)"
ReplyDeleteComments for Katherine
ReplyDeleteKatherine,
The farther along I read in this chapter, I also was convinced of Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence up until the last few pages of the chapter. As I started reading the last pages of the chapter, my view on the Sacco and Vanzetti’s character started to change. Historian Paul Avrich uncovered evidence that puts the men’s character into question. The one piece of evidence at the end of the chapter that was bold to me is when Vanzetti told Judge Thayer, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” This quote stood out to me because I am wondering, what is he guilty for?
Even though you seemed to disagree with the Americans in the past who were not pro-immigration. I can understand reasons why their perceptions of immigrants were low. I understand why Americans did not want immigrants coming over because I would not want immigrants coming to our country and taking my job. If there is a new flow of immigration in a country without a booming economy, then jobs are going to be lost for lowing paying worker and the poverty rate is going to increase. I believe the Americans in the past felt like many Americans today. Many Americans are angered over the fact that illegal aliens from Mexico are being smuggled into our country and are taking American jobs everyday.
Reed, I like that you pointed out that at the beginning of the chapter you felt sympathetic towards Sacco and Vanzetti. I agree that they should have a fair trial and be punished only for crimes that they are guilty of. By the end of the book, I was not as sympathetic towards them either, because as you said their anarchist beliefs were not just philosophical, but tended to be subversive. I, too, hope that our current judicial process would prevent a similar situation from happening. I found the nativism in this chapter compelling too. Today, people from almost every nation can be found in America, but during economic times this book has shown me that people were not so open to diversity and immigration. We, as a country, do like to think that we have welcomed people in times of trouble, as we should, but we don’t always do that. America was started as a country offering a new life, and just as our ancestors were welcomed over here many years ago, we as a country should still be welcoming others coming for the same reason our families came for.
ReplyDeleteThe trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti reveals the prejudices associated with nativism, along with the flaws of America's judicial system. At first glance, it seems as though Sacco and Vanzetti are guilty of their crimes in Braintree, Massachusetts. But upon further indulgence into the trial, their innocence may be proven. The arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti was unorthodox to see the least. They were arrested because they looked like "suspicious characters" who may be connected to the Braintree murders. During their interrogation, Sacco and Vanzetti were not questioned on their whereabouts on the day of the murder, but on their political beliefs. This is relevant because in the early 1920's, an outbreak of "nativism" spread across the United States. Immigrants with radical religious or political beliefs were often persecuted, and anyone with books or any form of literature that promoted anarchy or bashed capitalism would be taken into custody and perhaps even deported. Sacco and Vanzetti were known anarchists, which probably did not help their case when they went to trial for the Braintree murders.
ReplyDeleteThe trial for Sacco and Vanzetti was flawed from the beginning. Their judge seemed bent on convicting them of their crimes from the beginning, based on his actions in the courtroom and out of the courtroom. Also, the prosecution often confused Sacco and Vanzetti, based on their lack of knowledge of the English language. Another misnomer on the prosecution’s side was their ballistics evidence. The ballistics expert the prosecution brought in said that there was a one hundred percent chance the bullet was fired from a weapon that Sacco and Vanzeti carried. The defense however, said that there was no conclusive evidence that they fired the fatal bullet. Everyone on the jury was also a native born American, no immigrants. Despite all of this, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
I personally believe that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent, given their solid alibis from over ten people, and the circumstantial evidence that the case against them was based on. The flaws of the judicial system in the early 20th century are really evident in this case to me. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted not on hard evidence, but on evidence that only suggests that they were murderers. And based on this evidence, their lives were abruptly ended. We have come a long way from then, developing the Miranda rights, and making sure everyone has a fair trial. However, we cannot bring back the lives of these 2 men, who may or may not have committed murder. What we can do, is learn from our mistakes in the past to work towards a greater future.
Sriram, you are right about the pitiful excuse for a trial that went on in this case. The evidence presented was not clear at all, yet the judge and jury still tried to base a decision off of mostly inconclusive claims. It points out how flawed our justice system can be. All of the men involved with the trial let their personal beliefs impede our system of justice. This is the one horrible flaw of our justice system and you correctly pointed it out. Sacco and Vanzetti were both anarchists and immigrants. This did not clash well with the time period. The Red Scare was beginning to happen and the nativist movement was in full swing. This immediately put Sacco and Vanzetti at a disadvantage. People dislike anarchists because of all the bombings that were occurring. These men let their emotions and political beliefs get the best of them. This caused them to rule in a way that was corrupt and backed by little to no evidence.
ReplyDeleteCaleb Smith
ReplyDeleteAP Government
Belcher
Summer 2010
Sacco and Vanzetti
How can a small town murder and robbery split a country, even a world in half? What could cause millions of people to protest for the lives of two Italian immigrants? The bottom line is that the trial and case of Sacco and Vanzetti represent a much larger underlying issue. The rift in the world was caused by the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti seemed to be suffering for their political views, race and immigration status rather than for crimes. All evidence seemed to support their innocence, however trial Judge Thayer continued to ignore facts in exchange for his prejudice against Sacco and Vanzetti. The author states that before the trial even began, before the facts were laid before the jury, Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty. Judge Thayer knew it. How did he know it? No one can tell. The world waited anxiously to see whether Justice or apparent prejudice would prevail in the case. On April 9, 1927 the case came to a head when after some six years of repeated appeals Judge Thayer sentenced the two men to death by the electric chair. The majority of Americans let out a collective groan, during the years of appeals, more and more evidence had surfaced that proved the men to be innocent. Public opinion had swayed from the prosecutor to the defendant. It became apparent that prejudice had prevailed over justice. Or had it?
It became well known that over the years leading to their execution that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. They did not believe in organized government. The author of this chapter addresses the fact that Fred Moore, the defense attorney for the defendants, admitted after their execution on August 23, 1927 that Vanzetti and Sacco had been hiding large amounts of dynamite at their home for the purpose of destroying the homes of prominent government leaders. So the author leaves us with a very challenging question. Was justice served in a very twisted way? Did prejudice lead to justice? Did Sacco and Vanzetti deserve to die?
If Sacco and Vanzetti were planning terrorist actions against our country they deserved to die. But did they deserve to die for crimes that they by all evidence did not commit? Perhaps if more work had been put into research into the lives and backgrounds of Sacco and Vanzetti their malicious plans would have come to light. Less time should have been invested in painting them for crimes they obviously did not commit. Time has corrected our justice system so that all are truly innocent until proven guilty. However the case of Sacco and Vanzetti serves as a constant reminder that prejudices and preconceived ideas should not be allowed to work their way into the courtroom. But… to pull from a favorite resource, The Bible:
Numbers 32:23
Be sure that your sins will find you out.
Was this verse proven in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti? That is a personal opinion that I will leave to you.
What I interpreted as the thesis of “Sacco and Vanzetti” is that if Americans get too caught up in defending “the American way of life” and not focusing and relying on what our Forefathers wrote as the laws of our country, then we have our priorities skewed. Many times, as displayed in the unjust trail of Sacco and Vanzetti, the American people let their fear of outsiders, immigrants, and terrorists control their judgment and reason. The sole reason the biased Judge Webster Thayer and District Attorney Frederick Katzmann were so determined to imprison and later death sentence Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti was because of Thayer and Katzmann’s personal Nativism beliefs. When these two powerful men got wrapped up in what they thought of as defending their country, they ignored the contradictions to the evidence that Katzmann had provided and stopped at nothing to let Sacco and Vanzetti’s appeal follow through. I agree with most of my classmates that the trail of these two Italian men was by far unjust, discriminatory, and pathetic. What surprised me the most was that there was literally no concrete, physical evidence that supported the notion that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty; the only thing that Katzmann wasn’t disproven on was the victims “evasive behavior” and “consciousness of guilt”. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me that two men, innocent or guilty, were shocked to death based upon their behavior towards their case. Personally, I have no idea or theory as to if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or innocent, but if they were innocent I view their death as murder. I think it was murder, if they were innocent, because first off they could not understand English when the prosecutor was asking them questions; therefore, they were unable to defend themselves meaning an unfair trial. Second, the job of the trial as stated in the book is not to decide if the two men were innocent or guilty but merely to determine if the evidence is strong enough to confirm the suspects as guilty. Clearly, the evidence was neither strong nor factual; for example, when Captain Proctor later signed an official declaration that stated he told Katzmann that there was no evidence that proved Sacco’s gun had made the fatal shot to Alessandro Berardelli. Last, I view it as murder because these two men, if innocent, were killed because of their beliefs in America where the first Amendment gives people the freedom of speech and religion; granted, the two men weren’t citizens, but I think they should have been treated in a somewhat similar way. On the other hand, if these two men were guilty of this particular crime, I think they should have had a less serious punishment like 20 years in prison instead of death by the electric chair. The part mentioned on how Sacco and Vanzetti possessed dynamite in their apartment made me question my earlier view of murder, but then I realized that I earlier thought this without knowing about their background; after I found out, I was just as bad as the court to judging them. Sacco and Vanzetti’s whole trial reinforces the idea that Americans must base our trials on the laws our Forefathers wrote for us and not on our personal beliefs in order to give everyone equal, fair trials. After reading about the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, I am disappointed in the justice system of the 1920’s and hoping the one in 2010 isn’t doing a repeat of this case without me or my fellow American citizens knowing.
ReplyDeleteZach,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on almost every account. Sacco and Vanzetti were almost definitely innocent. I think that the authors do a great job clarifying that point. One issue I do disagree with you on is when you said:
"And based on this evidence, their lives were abruptly ended. We have come a long way from then, developing the Miranda rights, and making sure everyone has a fair trial. However, we cannot bring back the lives of these 2 men, who may or may not have committed murder."
I think that these two men did deserve to die, they were obviously plotting to harm our nation, and they were planning to accomplish this with dynamite. I would not be the first person to feel pity for them or wish to bring them back. However, I do believe that they should have died for the crime they actually DID commit. That being, their apparent disregard for America and their malicious intentions towards the USA not for some murder/ robbery that they were painted for.
Otherwise, I agree and I look forward to having you at DWS.
what i thought the thesis was, because it was not included in my original post.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the thesis of "Sacco and Vanzetti" focused primarily on determining if Sacco and Vanzetti were given a fair trial, rather than if they were guilty or innocent.
After reading the chapter on Sacco and Vanzetti, I was faced with very contradictory views and I was not sure of what I believed to be true. It was a lot of information to process, and it puzzled me to see such a small case grow so large and important to so many people from other cities and even states. I believe this to be an example of one of the countries greatest downfalls: the epitome of the countries’ prejudice nature. Sacco and Vanzetti were foreign anarchists, convicted of robbery and murder, charges which I still can not prove to be true or false. The fact of the matter is that whether or not Sacco and Vanzetti were in fact guilty, the leaders (lawyers and judges) of that time felt it necessary to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law because they fit the “profile” of the criminal. In America, every person; no matter what race, ethnicity or belief, is allowed access to a fair trial; not to mention is claimed innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it seems as if these values on which the country was founded on were swept under the rug because it was some sort of an “anarchist nature” for these men to do this. I was shocked when I learned that prosecutors did not ask about the robbery at all in the first two days, but instead questioned the immigrants’ beliefs and motives. The timing could not have been worse for these two immigrants, who were being charged in a time of economic downfall and also the Red Scare period. An anarchist is a person who believes there should be no government at all, and thoughts like that were unheard of in America at the time. What would happen if “criminals” like that roamed the country and tried to instigate trouble for the government? So in my opinion, I believe it was more than a hatred of their beliefs that drove them to be so avid about convicting these men, but also a fear of them. As the chapter delved deeper, I found it harder to determine whether or not the men were innocent or guilty. Sure, they had obtained my full support in the beginning with the complete lack of evidence and racial profiling, but when it came time to defend them some of their statements did not seem like those of an innocent man. Whether or not they were guilty of their charges I can not say, but I do believe that they were condemned guilty long before they were officially convicted. If I could sum up the most basic thing this chapter was trying to teach it would have to be the age old saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.”
ReplyDeleteMy thesis is this: (sorry I forgot on my original post):
ReplyDeleteI think the thesis of this chapter, “Sacco and Vanzetti”, would be to point out the fact that ethnic prejudices and judicial system flaws were very prevalent in this time.
After reading the chapter entitled “Sacco and Vanzetti,” I came to the conclusion that the thesis of the chapter tells of how the American justice system is flawed because of an overwhelming amount of prejudicial thoughts in the courtroom. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian immigrants who were accused of robbing the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in South Braintree, Massachusetts. The main detail to pay attention to would be the fact that they were two Italian immigrants living in the United States. With this crime taking place right after the conclusion of World War I, Americans would obviously possess a sense of nationalism for their country and its citizens. The timing of the situation held no advantage for the two Italians; for instance, if the murder and robbery took place with a modern justice system, Sacco and Vanzetti would have definitely not been executed and possibly not even been sent to prison. After reading this chapter, I personally believe that the two men should have been declared innocent and let free. Although I realize that having a flawless justice system is unfeasible, it is possible to improve from the standards that were set in the trials of Sacco and Vanzetti. Although the two were arrested near the crime scene with loaded guns, there is not much more evidence that pointed to the two as criminals. The two were immediately asked of their political beliefs, which I thought there was no relevance for that in order to decide whether or not they were guilty or innocent. The courtroom was filled to the brim with prejudice. First of all, why would they be asked about their political beliefs instead of the robbery itself? Although they could hardly speak any English, the foreigners should not have been stereotyped and accused of another man’s murder. When it comes to the justice system, it is not necessarily what you know, but usually what you can prove in court; during this case, neither of the two was existent, so the two Italians should have been easily proven innocent. I feel sorry for these men because they were innocent men who did nothing wrong at the time. How could these two men be accused of murder and robbery with the lack of ample evidence? This reading has taught me two significant principles: we live under a flawed justice system, and prejudice is immoral and should be lessened altogether.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, the thesis has become obvious that these two men were victims of prejudice and judicial system flaws. Whether or not the two men were actually guilty of robbery and murder, the law entitles Sacco and Vanzetti the right to a fair trial. I do not believe that the two men received a fair trial by any means. As a matter of fact, right to a fair trial is the sixth amendment to the constitution. I would have hoped that the United States would have gotten that down pat by the time this trial occurred. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In regards to racial and ethnic prejudices, I believe that a lot of this was dealt their way as well. I find it very interesting that the police officers that questioned Sacco and Vanzetti after the robbery and murder asked what their personal beliefs and motives were before actually questioning them about the incident (this occurred two days after the fact). I don’t think that personal beliefs and opinions in governmental issues are relevant in a low profile robbery and murder case unless the murder was targeted toward a minority, person of different religion, etc. If this were a high profile murder case and or terrorist operation, I could see the relevance. As I continued my reading, my thoughts were leaning toward, “innocent,” simply because of lack of evidence and other factors. However, as I finished the chapter, I started to lean towards the middle; I was unsure of the innocence of the two men, despite the racial/ ethnic prejudice and judicial system flaws. Then, in a very lone incident that my memory served me correctly, I remembered a point in the chapter where it was stated that the men didn’t adapt to American culture, nor did they try to become a U.S. citizen. In addition, the eminent law professor quoted in this chapter stated: “…who had not learned to use our language even modestly well.” (I am aware that the professor’s statement was geared towards Sacco and Vanzetti in a negative way). However, this points out that the men didn’t speak English all too well. Later on in the chapter, a quote directed to Judge Thayer from Vanzetti, “But my conviction is that I have suffered for things I am guilty of.” At first, I was swayed by this, but then I remembered the quote that the brothers didn’t speak English well. Maybe Vanzetti didn’t know what he was saying or that it was taken the wrong way. Just throwing that out there as another of many possibilities. Rip to shreds if you so choose!
ReplyDeleteThesis: The history read about in books and the history made everyday is not always black-and white, defined by simple motives full of hate or righteousness. Instead the political atmosphere and public perception, no matter how misguided they may be, has a much more considerable influence on events, whether locally or internationally affiliated. First, i believe Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of a crime they did not commit. And this crime, a simple armed robbery (one that our reading tells us was quite common in the 20's) mad easier by the sever stupidity of Rexford Slater, and its result: two innocent Americans dead, two Italian anarchist executed, and the eyes of the world turned on the USA once again. I find it very easy to believe that the court system imparted their bias upon the two accused, possibly believing they were protecting America as a society (a common view in nativist and poor economic times). Like the authors, i found it quite ironic that Sinclair, a pro-socialist and staunch defender of the accused, was able to uncover genuine evidence that they were probably not only philosophical anarchists (a testimony the prosecution could have used). What we see in this chapter can be paralleled to many social injustices that followed the 1920's -like putting the Japanese in interment camps, the stereotyping of Hispanics, and the persecution of civil rights activist in the 1960's. In each situation you have a people, living in America, yet feeling separate, almost as if they live in "two nations."
ReplyDeleteAs seen in the reading the question "what is defined as freedom of speech" One of the reasons Sacco and Vanzetti were trying so diligently to flee the country was because the inflammatory writings they were hiding would have gotten them arrested (and convicted). But why were their beliefs and ideas being so shunned. (doesn't anarchy-though against any type of centralized government-promote individual integrity and personal accountability in place of a governing body). Are integrity and accountability such bad virtues? If we learn anything from this reading it is that each court case must treat the defendant as an individual (and therefor evaluate him on his individual thoughts and acts), not as a part of a fear based stereotype. Whether it be a different religion, theology, ideology, or monetary system, let us as Americans remind the world that we are enlightened, educated, and accepting. Before we criticize other's culture can we first learn (not believe in) and discuss our differing opinions.
Thesis: The history read about in books and the history made everyday is not always black-and white, defined by simple motives full of hate or righteousness. Instead the political atmosphere and public perception, no matter how misguided they may be, has a much more considerable influence on events, whether locally or internationally affiliated. First, i believe Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of a crime they did not commit. And this crime, a simple armed robbery (one that our reading tells us was quite common in the 20's) mad easier by the sever stupidity of Rexford Slater, and its result: two innocent Americans dead, two Italian anarchist executed, and the eyes of the world turned on the USA once again. I find it very easy to believe that the court system imparted their bias upon the two accused, possibly believing they were protecting America as a society (a common view in nativist and poor economic times). Like the authors, i found it quite ironic that Sinclair, a pro-socialist and staunch defender of the accused, was able to uncover genuine evidence that they were probably not only philosophical anarchists (a testimony the prosecution could have used). What we see in this chapter can be paralleled to many social injustices that followed the 1920's -like putting the Japanese in interment camps, the stereotyping of Hispanics, and the persecution of civil rights activist in the 1960's. In each situation you have a people, living in America, yet feeling separate, almost as if they live in "two nations."
ReplyDeleteAs seen in the reading the question "what is defined as freedom of speech" One of the reasons Sacco and Vanzetti were trying so diligently to flee the country was because the inflammatory writings they were hiding would have gotten them arrested (and convicted). But why were their beliefs and ideas being so shunned. (doesn't anarchy-though against any type of centralized government-promote individual integrity and personal accountability in place of a governing body). Are integrity and accountability such bad virtues? If we learn anything from this reading it is that each court case must treat the defendant as an individual (and therefor evaluate him on his individual thoughts and acts), not as a part of a fear based stereotype. Whether it be a different religion, theology, ideology, or monetary system, let us as Americans remind the world that we are enlightened, educated, and accepting. Before we criticize other's culture can we first learn (not believe in) and discuss our differing opinions.
After reading Chapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti, I thought the thesis would be how flawed the American justice system was. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti helped expose the judicial problems America has to whole world. The whole world knew of the two Italian immigrants that were wrongly killed in America. They were suspected of killing a paymaster and robbing him in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The cop that arrested them said the reason for the arrest was they were suspicious characters. It is still amazing that stuff like that still happens today. I saw a video where a cop punched a woman in the face because she was asking why she was getting arrested. Also about a year ago, there was an incident in Dallas, Texas in which a man was arrested because he was speeding to get to the hospital because his father was having an emergency. He did not pull over till he got to the hospital. But this just shows how badly the American justice system needs corrections. However, this happened right after World War I, so tensions were still heated between nations. So it was just bad timing for Sacco and Bartolomeo. Certainly today they would have been given a fair trial and would not have been killed. However, they really didn’t help themselves out. I am still curious why they were carrying all those shells around for. And the fact that they could not speak English could have been a problem if the prosecutors were asking questions without translators. I simply believe that there was not enough evidence, so therefore the trial should have been dismissed unless more evidence was provided. I believe that Katzmann just used this trial for personal gain. He was known to be arrogant and was ruthless to get popularity. As the police and prosecutors were going about the case, they followed irregular procedures according to Davidson and Lytle. Katzmann did not even tell Sacco and Bartolomeo why they had been arrested. Even the police focused the questions on their political beliefs and associates. They did not even question the robbery. That fact really got me to say that these men had to be innocent. If they had robbed the paymaster, would they not have that money on them? I thought it was amazing that they police said Sacco and Bartolomeo were conscious with guilt.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 11, Sacco and Vanzetti, I believe the thesis entails that ones political beliefs and philosophies can cloud ones judgement when confronted with opposition from a rival political view. As an Italian American myself, my initial reaction to chapter 11 was of course anger. Two clearly innocent Italians were sentenced to death due to their countries of birth and respectable political views. The circumstances of their trials was completely ridiculous. Any respectable modern day lawyer would be appalled by the terrible feeble witness statements and lack of evidence that lead to the unjust execution of these two men. America's modern legal system may contain numerous flaws itself; but in comparison to the show America was running in the 1920's, America's current legal system exemplifies absolute perfection. One can only wonder as to why the judge presiding over such an important case would be one with such an impartial attitude towards the case. Judge Thayer, being a diehard Nationalist was obviously going harshly punish two foreigners with anarchist political views. It also did not help that the District Attorney also was a Nationalist with an apparent dislike for foreigner, who he deemed were attacking the well being of his beloved Capitalistic country. Not a single aspect of Katzmann's arguments would have held up in a respectable court setting. His witnesses all had differing stories with little to no consistency. The ballistics evidence was only able to tell the jury that a "similar" gun was used in the murders. The nation's legal system is seriously flawed when two men can be sentenced to death based solely on the fact that they acted guiltily. I do not doubt that the two men were up to no good at the time (holding loaded guns with excess ammo and being evasive is not usually a good sign), but to be charged for a murder when they both had air tight alabis is ludicrous. The ultimate cause for both these men's death is the fact that each of them was a devout anarchist and "threat" to America. The American population's fear of radical foreigners destroying their country from within primarily lead to the death of both Sacco and Vanzetti.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis of Chapter 11 states that, in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, justice in the court was curbed by the nativist pride, personal prejudices, and anti-anarchist sentiment of the judge, the prosecution, and the jury. The courts were never truly able to prove the guilt or innocence of these two acclaimed criminal murderers, but in my opinion that’s not the purpose of the chapter. In all truth, I believe that the decision of the courts regarding the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti could have ventured either way; there was enough evidence to prove them guilty, and enough evidence to prove them innocent. I think that the chapter is trying to say that, even though our justice system is designed to give people their necessary rights, sometimes, the duties of our justice system become limited due to personal prejudices and beliefs. Take a little time to think about the mindset of the American people in the early 1920s: were they not totally against any political belief that threatened their democratic way of life? Because of World War I, any foreign idea that seemed to even slightly go against American democracy was considered a deadly form of evil. Nativist pride and national security had the American people constantly looking over their shoulders in a mild panic. Unfortunately, Sacco and Vanzetti were the living, breathing, and moving idea of what almost all Americans hated to see in their country. Their anarchist views and relations to anarchist leaders were considered by most to be downright treason. In the early 1920s, most urban Americans also despised the immigrants for having to compete with them for jobs and housing; therefore, Sacco and Vanzetti, being Italian immigrants, had another reason to be hated among their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. All this personal prejudice and nativist pride came tumbling together to create an unstoppable demon for Sacco and Vanzetti in the courtroom, one that they could only dream of overcoming. Instead of focusing on their suspected crimes, Katzmann, the prosecuting attorney focused almost all of his time and attention on Sacco and Vanzetti’s radical beliefs and associations with other radicals, as well as their “apparent” consciousness of guilt upon arrest. Whenever the defense would try to bring in concrete evidence and personal testimony, the prosecution would do their best to fight back with “unusual zeal.” For instance, when the defense used eye witnesses to try and prove Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence, the prosecution would claim that the witnesses, who were all foreigners, would do anything to protect their fellow foreigners. Also, when the defense attempted to use ballistics to prove the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti, the prosecution hired their own ballistics specialist to prove the defense wrong, even though their evidence didn’t quite add up. Overall, while the two suspects, in my opinion, never received enough evidence to be proved innocent, they surely didn’t receive enough evidence to be proved guilty either. The outcome of the trial was derived entirely from the prejudice and pride that occasionally proves to be stronger than the American justice system, two factors that continue to curb court decisions even to this day.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti
ReplyDeleteChapter 11 thesis: The thesis in this chapter is that Americas justice system cannot function properly if there is prejudices against the defendants. The nineteen-twenties were a time of great nationalism and pride, so when there was an opportunity to take two Italian immigrants off the streets, Judge Thayer took it. There was insufficient evidence to convict these men, but the judge and the jury saw it fit to condemn these men to death. The sixth amendment states that everyone has a right to a fair and speedy trial. Sacco and Vanzetti’s trial was no doubt speedy, but not at all fair. The judge wanted to convict these men because they weren’t Americans and they were believed to be anarchists.
Since these two men were foreigners and anarchists they were looked as a threat to America. Since the prosecutor could not produce sufficient evidence against the two men, he made very clear that they were anarchists. The jury and the judge then proceeded to condemn both of the men to death by the electric chair.
The question that arises in my mind about this trial is what were the two men really convicted for? Was it that they actually committed the crimes, or was it simply their nationality? I think it may have been a combination of the two. The crime was committed by two men, but it probably wasn’t Sacco or Vanzetti. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The men came to America in a time where immigration was looked down upon. The American public felt that they were criminals for coming into their country without being invited. I think that this prejudice led to their conviction.
America was founded on the beliefs that anyone should be able to come to this country as long as they contribute to society. These men never founded charities or gave to the poor, but they certainly weren’t doing anyone any harm. America’s justice system is based on the fact that anyone has the right to an impartial judge and a jury of your peers. These men were alone in this country so they had no peers and Judge Thayer was never even half-way impartial. The only redeeming factor in the Judges case is that these two men were almost worshipping the idea of anarchy. I would like to think of this as a stepping stone in American history rather than a step back. This brought us out of the idea that America is for American’s only, and that anyone can make it here should be able to stay here.
The general thesis of “Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti” is that by demonstrating Nationalism and trying to defend our country against foreigners and radicals, we can become prejudice and actually go against our country and “the clean words our Fathers spoke.” The chapter uses the complicated trail of Sacco and Vanzetti to show us the truth behind this thesis. For such a huge and well-known case, I was surprised that I had never even heard of Sacco and Vanzetti. Unlike the other chapters we were assigned to read, I had no clue about this information so it was much more interesting to read. Also, since I had never heard of the case, I had no bias diving into the reading.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began reading, I thought that I would be reading about evidence determining whether Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent or guilty. However, I learned that this case had little to do with innocent or guilty; it had so much more to do with the flaws of our justice system and how personal prejudice influenced judges and attorneys. I was blown away by the amount of evidence that pointed to Thayer’s and Katzmann’s prejudices but they continued to determine the outcome of the case. The evidence in the case that supposedly “proved them guilty” was completely absurd. The witnesses were prejudice and unreliable, and the ballistics report was proved false. The “consciousness of guilt” that Katzmann based his case on was obviously the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. Many times, people in our justice system were heard admitting the fact that they did not care if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty; only that they were anarchists and that “they ought to hang anyway.” Right away it was obvious that this whole case was centered around Nativism.
I believe that timing had a lot to do with the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. When the case took place, our justice system was different than it is today. Not until the cases of Miranda and Escobedo in 1966 and 1964 were suspects allowed to remain silent, to be told their rights, and to use an impartial lineup for identification. In today’s time, Sacco and Vanzetti would not have had to tell the police and justice system officials their views on government and our country immediately after their arrest. Their views on government and our country played more in this case than the actual evidence against their suspected crime of murder and robbery.
After reading, I realized many citizens of the time were just as enraged by this disposal of American justice as I was. As Dos Passos said, the case of Sacco and Vanzetti formed “two nations.” This is why the case was such a big deal that spread all over the country and the world. It was so controversial that our country was split in two- by the ones who let their Nativism overcome their American ideals and the ones who fought for Sacco and Vanzetti’s justice.
Before reading the chapter "Sacco and Vanzetti", I had no idea what these two names meant. Now I see that these two men and their "crime" caused a major uproar in the United States. The point of this chapter is to show how much power the government really has and if they want something bad enough you can bet on it happening.
ReplyDeleteThe court system did not find any evidence on these men for being guilty of a murder. But they were still found guilty and senesced to death. The only thing the courts had against these men was that they were foreigners.
These men's trials were during the time of the Red Scare, and I think this had a lot to do with the courts finding these men guilty. Most of the people in the United States would have flipped if the men were found innocent and let go free. This is because the people were only seeing what the government let out about these people.
If I were one of these men I would have been furious as I am sure they were. The fact that they were being punished for looking guilty and holding a loaded gun is insane. The judge was thinking about his personal beliefs other than what this country is based on. This is that all are equal no matter the background. These particular men did not agree with any type of government, for they stated that any government leads to a downfall. I believe this is what made the judge partial to his own beliefs.
Thayer, the original trial judge, could have been seen as partial when he was asked to see if the jury could come up with another verdict. Any man who thought he was absolutely correct would simply have said "no". But it is said Thayer took close to 25,000 words to deny this. If I was aware of this, and had the power to do anything about it I would have seen to it that Thayer was guilty of prejudice.
It all comes down to extreme nationalist. I know that I do not like illegal aliens in the United States, but if they become legal they are just as American as I am. The judge in this case was more worried about killing these men then trying to get them into the United States.
Thayer knew he was wrong, but he knew he held the power so no one could do much about it. The correct thing was to ask the men to leave the country or if they wanted to stay make them get a green card. Another point I think the judge was trying to make was for other immigrants to leave or become a citizen. And if they failed to do this they could end up like these men. So Thayer was making a point with these two men.
camille fox,
ReplyDeleteI like the way that you considered Sacco and Vanzetti as not being any more innocent than they were guilty. When I first read this chapter, I was so enraged by the prejudice views of the court that I immediately considered Sacco and Vanzetti innocent. Even though they did not deserve to be proven guilty, they were not for sure considered innocent either. It is true that the courts had no way of determining the truth.
I agree with you when you discuss that Sacco and Vanzetti fit the stereotypes immigrant that all Americans were afraid of. Although it wasn’t necessarily fair, Americans were truly afraid of anarchists and they had a reason to be. The media told the citizens of the United Sates that they should fear anarchists and radicals. These ideas were so widespread during this time period that not even evidence could prove Sacco and Vanzetti innocent in a courtroom of prejudice judges.
Sacco and Vanzetti, Chapter 11, was my favorite to read because it clearly shows corruption in America’s justice system. The thesis behind this chapter is that personal prejudice toward race, belief, or any other controversial factor can greatly influence the outcome of a trial. The two men were sent to their death at a trial with very little evidence connecting them to the Braintree murder they were accused of. It was largely their ethnic origin, political beliefs, and suspicious behavior that led to their death. It made me wonder how I would react if I was accused of something I did not do. Any action could be viewed as suspicious in one way or another. If you refuse to speak for fear of your words being turned against you, your silence condemns you. If you speak too much they could twist the words around. If you cry they can blame it on guilt. There is more to court than guilty or innocent. A court is run by humans and therefore bound to have flaws, such as biased opinions.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is such a controversial issue today. On the one hand, I would love to have everyone live in America under a democracy, but at the same time, there is no way to support a planet’s population in one country. It is illogical to think America can save the human race by allowing immigration. For every person taken in there are a million more starving. The best way for America to help others is to help them fix their own governments so that they can live as good as, or better, than us. At this point in time, the American economy is not as lively as it once was. America needs to fix herself before she can fix others.
Sacco and Vanzetti really caught the attention of the public. Their case made people stop and think for the first time about how the courts were working. Instead of just assuming that the verdict was right, people were interested in how things worked out. Many of them firmly believed in Sacco and Vanzetti’s innocence. The day they died found many Americans as well as others from around the world torn apart in grief and anger. A crowd of people had waited outside the prison to wait for news of their death, and when they discovered it they literally ripped at their clothing as they wept and cried out in the name of justice. This case really captured people’s attention and made them realize there was injustice in the government. This was a controversial time in America’s history.
Sacco and Vanzetti
ReplyDeleteThis chapter tells the story of just one case of injustice in the justice system. These two men were said to have been charged with murder and theft, but they were really being punished for their beliefs. This story is a great example of how prejudice can overcome a person’s sense of morality. Because the officer who arrested these two men had no real proof that they had committed a crime, he had to work as hard as he could to put away two men just because of his prejudice against them. It was said that America would welcome anyone escaping another country. But during this time when there were many more people than there were jobs, Americans were not so happy to see newcomers. This was another prejudice against these men. They were not American-born, and their loyalty to the country could not really be proven. Americans resented them because of who they were.
Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists, so they didn’t believe in the government. This fact was greatly used against them in court because almost everyone else disagreed with their beliefs. They were both foreigners in America; they had come to this country to try to find better lives. Vanzetti was a fish peddler and Sacco was trying to help take care of his family. Another thing that the court used against the men was that when war broke out and the country needed men to fight, they both fled to Mexico so that they wouldn’t have to. While Katzmann didn’t understand this, I can see why they would not want to leave after they had only just gotten there. If this was the better life they were looking for, why would they want to leave and fight? But Katzmann thought that surely if they loved their new country, they would want to fight for her.
I think it is unfair that the prosecutors didn’t listen to anything that Sacco and Vanzetti had to say. There were far more witnesses defending them than accusing them, but still no one would listen. The “witnesses” who claimed to have seen them commit the crime were said to have lied. They changed their story more than once, and the witnesses defending the men actually had believable stories. When it came down to it, the only evidence of their guilt was the way they acted when they were arrested. I think this is completely unfair because that is not a legitimate way to prove anyone guilty.
Whether these men were guilty or not, they were still wronged because they were not given a fair trial, which is what the courts in America are supposed to do. I’m sure that even today there are still countless cases in which prejudice had more to do with the outcome than actual facts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti caused a whirlwind of chaos across America. In chapter eleven, the thesis can be derived from the prejudice seen in the courtroom of the Sacco and Vanzetti case. Their cultural background caused them to be degraded by the jurors, and unfortunately, the judge. Both Italian born men were being forced to fight for their lives against a trial at a time where Nativism was a strongly controversial idea. White supremacy was on the mind of many males during this era of the roaring 20’s. Many judges and lawyers reviewed this case and it was clear that the juror Ripley’s quote, “Damn them, they ought to hang anyway,” was the mindset of many during this case trial. As many prominent men during this time strayed away from the principles of the founding fathers in 1776, the fight over the matter of guilty or innocent for Sacco and Vanzetti flourished into something much more. It became a fight between two nations; the arrayed immigrants, workers, and the poor being represented by the Sacco and Vanzetti versus the “men of Norfolk,” or rather, the men having a similar outlook to Thayer.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that the men were clearly innocent, and that the Supreme Court should have taken notice of the pulsating prejudice values seen throughout this trial. After Celestino E. Medeiros sent in that letter to Sacco, and much investigation took place, it was obvious that the Morelli gang should have been considered as suspects. However, Thayer’s hate for these two men was a wonder to me. Where did his strong hate for these men come from? Even after the defense made a prevailing case on the Morelli gang, Thayer still refused to even consider the thought. Also, an initial thought that came to mind after reading the first few pages was what happened to Boda? Why was he not more involved in this trial? Thankfully for this case, many protocols and orders must be followed now before evidence and witnesses can become support for a case.
This case became much more than innocent versus guilty, but rather an issue on the principles our founding fathers created in 1776. Riots and tears broke out after it was announced that the “good shoemaker and the poor fish peddler” were dead. This exemplifies just how much more this case called for. The unjust and unfair ways of the lawyers, judges, and leaders in this case will always be remembered.
Trey Flynn
ReplyDeleteThesis of Chapter 11: As illustrated in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the American justice system is incapable of preventing penetration of personal bias when the attitudes of the nation overpower the safeguards against an unfair trial. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, the great force that triumphed over their right to a fair trial was a strong force of nationalism following WWI. The main indication that Sacco and Vanzetti were given an unfair trial is the lack of evidence that was presented at the trial. The American justice system was made so complex in order to protect the wrongly convicted, yet these two men were victimized by a wave of nationalism that should have been prevented from ever entering the courthouse. To understand why the two men were so strongly favored against, it is important to recognize the cause of the fears that possessed so many Americans, and even the judge. After WWI and the rise of Bolshevism, Americans were put on edge by their new responsibilities as a dominating world power. Because of this, the political tolerance usually associated with America was overpowered by paranoia of infiltration by radical groups. Because of this new sense of nationalism, Americans felt the need to defend their established way of life by declaring war on any minority with a dissenting opinion. Sacco and Vanzetti ere targeted because of their anarchist beliefs and their Italian heritage, and from the accusations placed upon them sprung dissention from minorities across America that recognized the injustice being done. The same convicting spirit of nationalism exists in milder forms today in immigration battles across the states. Americans feel threatened that Hispanic workers will dominate the job market, and thus they rally against illegal immigration. The underlying theme of the chapter is that nationalism can be detrimental to the American promise of tolerance when fear conquers the public perception of foreigners. Another important aspect of this chapter is the importance of public opinion even in a process as defined as a criminal trial. The nationwide contempt for Sacco and Vanzetti’s country of origin and political beliefs was more than enough to convict the two men and lead them to their untimely deaths. What we have to learn from injustices such as this is that procedure and impartiality should always be considred the first priority of any judge or juror of a criminal trial.
The overall thesis of chapter 11, "Sacco and Vanzetti," is that the fundamental statements of American history focus their attention on the fairness of the trial and the innocence or guilt of the people. It is very obvious that during the time of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, the judicial system was undergoing imperfection and prejudice was a large issue. At first, the two Italian men were arrested by a police officer because they appeared "suspicious characters" and were later given no room to explain their position, due to the immediate accusations made by prosecutors about the two men's beliefs as anarchists and reports by eyewitnesses about some Italians. Also, Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty due to their false accusations and the firearms they each were carrying. Yet, it is hard to prove the men guilty when there is no factual proof of the men's murder or robbery of Parmenter's money. I fully believe that the conviction had been influenced by the reputation of the accused. I think what struck me as the overall importance of this chapter was not to explain how our justice system had the opportunity to prove the two individuals guilty or innocent, but rather to show how America is supposed to be certain of a fair court system; yet in a situation like the Sacco and Vanzetti case, a conviction is sometimes based on personal opinion, prejudice morals, and limited beliefs. I found it so unbelievable that the police officers in charge of questioning Sacco and Vanzetti about the murder and robbery actually repeatedly inquired them about their personal beliefs and associates, rather than getting down to business and looking for answers about the crime. To me, this just gave Chief Stewart a jump start at proving them guilty because of who they were and what they believed in. Compared to the legal system of the 1920's, our legal system now should overwhelm any court rulings of that time and should make any member in the courts today feel confident of at least being given the right to defend his or her own case. In my opinion, murder is a crucial issue and should be taken seriously. However, unfair court rulings and the victims not having a say so of their defense is almost even more important. To my understanding, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed because of a biased judge ruling, only later for the issue to be brought back up and declared an unjust trial.
ReplyDeleteJames La Russa
ReplyDeleteThe general thesis of "Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti" is in trying to protect our country from incriminating immigrants, the people of America can quickly look at a foreigner in a prejudiced manner. Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent of the crime which the courts quickly set on their heads, for suspecting an immigrant of a crime, who cannot defend himself because of the litteracy gap betweenn him and the courts, is quite easily accomplished. It is quite unfortunate that our courts unethically convince themselves that foreign men, such as Sacco and Vanzetti, are obviously guilty, because of their prejudiced outlooks. The strong influence of Nationalismon the courts of America created an uncontrolled biased opiinion for all Americans for some time after World War I. The court's quick manner in which it jumped to the conclusion that both men were guilty of an unforgivable crime proved that an unfair and biased trial was taking place in this "free" country. The author practically presented that the prosecutors of Sacco and Vanzetti were corrupt by indicating the several ways in which the prosecutors were planning on proving that these two innocen men were guilty. Plan after plan was shot down by the defense, for the truth shall prevail; unfortunately, the ultimatum reverts to the judge himself, who convicted these two immigrants of murder sentencing both of them to death by electric chair. Perhaps the courts were concerned about their safety, because of the recent ending of "the great war," but their concern should not involve throwing about the lives of innocent immigrants. Fortunately, After the Fact demonstrates many corrupt and fraudulent practices of the governmental system to help raise the awareness of many other politically involved people to speak out against this iniquitous form of insanity.
dear tracy,
ReplyDeleteI completely 100% agree with you.
Suspicious behaviour can be labeled as anything, whether you are crying or fighting against your accusers.
Also, I share the same outlook as you do with today's immigrants.
Everyone does deserve the right to live in America, but the question will always remain, Will our resources be enough to sustain a large nation?
After reading this chapter, it struck me how awful and too common this case of prejudice and judiciary flaws happens. These two regular Italian men were purely victimized to be the distraction and the scapegoat for the postwar fear of spies and infiltration of the country by immigrates and their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were arrested because they were “suspicious characters” but were never given the chance to prove themselves innocent. They were stereotyped by prosecutors, eyewitnesses, and police officers. They were accused of being anarchist. There was no rock solid proof of their supposed crime, but the prosecution used their carrying of a personal firearm to aid in their false accusations. Looking at this evidence, I see that the two men were clearly sentenced to death by a corrupt and unjust judiciary system. Chief Stewart used his personal prejudices against the two men instead of cold hard facts. The men’s nationality and their political views ended up getting them killed in the nation with a “just” judiciary system. The nation was going through a panic and scare at the end of World War II. Every American blamed Sacco and Vanzetti because there was a new sense of nationalism that made American want to protect the life they had established. They wanted to make any sort of bump or scare disappear as fast as possible no madder if it was just or not.
The Sacco and Vanzetti cases show the role the view of the American public can have on the supposed “impartial” judiciary system. The fear the American had against foreigners consequently sentenced two innocent men to death. Thayer used his power to convict the two men according to his personal opinion. The public’s extreme sense of nationalism lead Thayer to convict and sentence Sacco and Vanzetti in order to satisfy the public opinion.
The American Constitution clearly says that all have the right to a fair and speedy trial. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial was anything but fair. The judge was partial and unjust. The men never had a chance because they were not given their basic human right, a fair trial. In the end, the verdict was never proven beyond a shadow of doubt but merely a personal prejudice. Looking back at this chapter, I gathered that this was a step toward becoming a just judiciary system. I also feel that I better informed of America’s road to a just court system.
The thesis of Chapter 11 “Sacco and Vanzetti” is clearly that both men, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were victims of one of the most controversial episodes in American history. Because they immigrated from Italy to America to make some money for their families, they were considered by many to be aliens out to destroy the American way of life. Both Sacco and Vanzetti embodied the typical foreign menace American nativists feared the most because they were anarchists and foreigners. When I first started reading this selection, I had no idea who these two men were and how this one crime created such a scene. I found the first half of the chapter very boring and hard to understand. Of all the crimes in the world I didn’t understand why this one in particular brought up such a widespread controversy. Both men were convicted because many assumed that they were in charge of the murder of both Berardelli and Parmenter. Initially, they were arrested because they were both Italians and carried loaded revolvers on them. This one controversy gained international attention and roused many to support Sacco and Vanzetti’s cause; however, because this case took place after World War I, many citizen had a new pride for their country and didn’t way anyone to disturb the peace. Because the accused were assumed to be a threat to the American way of life, their right to a fair trial did not seem important to the judges and other leading officials. Also, both men did not have the option of being innocent until proven guilty. Both right to a fair trial and being innocent until proven guilty are all points stated in our Constitution constructed by our Founding Fathers. Judge Thayer was not in any way sympathetic to these men and did not want to give them any liberties that a typical American man would have if he were tried. Definitely, the trial record reveals that nativism influenced the way the judge ruled the court and the way the jury saw the defendants. After reading this selection, I was still a little confused. Even without the proper amount of evidence, the two innocent men were still unjustly convicted. The ultimate death of Sacco and Vanzetti was due to the fact of the flawed American judicial system and they were both anarchists and appeared to be threats to the standard American way of life.
ReplyDeleteBuddy, I agree with most everything you said about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial. Just because both men came into the country looking for higher paying jobs and a better way of life doesn’t mean they were trying to destroy the American way of life just because they were aliens and anarchists. They should have been given the right to a fair trial even though they were not native born Americans. Although I do agree with the quote the authours says about the tides of nativism rise and fall with the state of the national economy, I find this to be selfish of the American people. When the economy is in a good state, the American people want to use immigrants as a source of cheap labor such as the Chinese working on the railroad; however, when the economy is is a bad state many citizen want to push out the aliens in their own selfish interests.
ReplyDeleteThe Sacco and Vanzetti case is one like many others in history. A recent one would be the case of the Duke lacrosse team. These two cases have one thing in common, prejudice. This prejudice is the thesis of this chapter. This one word makes even the highest court in the land a flawed system. These two men were indeed radical, but does that give society more in particluiar Judge Thayer the right to condemn them. The answer is simply no. In this nation the law is above any man or body of men. Then you might ask why did these men receive punishment for actions they did not commit. The reasoning is simple. The law is blind, but the man who wields it isn't.
ReplyDeleteI am angered at how one man by the name of Judge Thayer can destroy the lives of two men just because one they are immigrants and two they think in a different way from the judge. What is the justice system in place for if not to protect the innocent. This just proves that evil can penetrate even the most sacred of institutions.
One other thing that surprised me were how the immigrants of this country were treated at the time. Some groups were advocating a literacy test for immigrants to become citizens. This is supposedly the land of the free, and we were trying to keep those deemed "undesirable" out. Then comes the Red Scare. People were branded as Communists for no reason sometimes and thus became outcasts of society.
Another thing that surprised me was how the trial took place. The judge basically let the prosecutor have free reign over his questioning. He would barrage Sacco who could barely speak English. This is atrocious and wrong. The jury pool was also corrupted which robs a fundamental right from the two on trial. Frankly its an unfair trial that should not have even taken place. The only good that could come from this case is its historical context as what not to do in the justice system.
I was very disappointed to learn how America at this time was so fearful of anything different that it would shun or destroy it. Prejudice is an evil form of human perception. It blinds those that are good and defends those that are evil. This case is a prime example.
An incredibly dark time in American history is the Sacco- Vanzetti trial, in which two Italian immigrants were charged with crimes with which a true connection could not be made. The only connection that could be made was that they were Italian anarchists. To understand the importance of the fact that they were Italian anarchists, one must take the time period into context. In this time period of the early 20th century, a large nativist movement had taken over the United States. Americans had a hostile hatred for many ethnic groups. This was partly due to the resurrection of the KKK and America's involvement in World War I. This hatred for immigrants will come into play later in the trials.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were brought to trial for the Braintree Robbery and the Braintree murder. During the trials, Sacco was able to produce an alibi that he was still at work at the time of the crimes. He even used his time card to prove it. None of the alibis would stand, even though many people were able to confirm the alibis as being factual. During the trials, Katzmann really won over the Thayer, the judge, and the jury with his references to outside information ( the fact that both Sacco and Vanzetti were both Italian anarchists). He really won them over in a discriminatory fashion. He used their political beliefs and ethnicity against them. These facts could be considered irrelevant to the case, but Thayer felt the spirit of nativism rising in his heart. Thayer himself had just given a speech a few weeks earlier insisting that Bolshevism and anarchist beliefs were direct threats to the American beliefs and institutions. Both men were eventually found guilty and sentenced to execution by electrocution.
The scary part of this story is that little evidence could be found against the men, yet the two men were found guilty on ridiculous claims. This fact worries me. How far does our justice system really protect us? The fundamental flaw of any justice system is the fact that one will always have a bias. This flaw is incredibly evident in this trial. Thayer and the jury allowed their bias to cloud their vision. When no real evidence was able to be produced, Katzmann used ethnic background and political beliefs to incriminate these seemingly innocent men. We will never be able to overcome this fundamental flaw in the judicial system because we are human. Sadly, two men witnessed this first hand, and it cost them their lives.
The epic tale Sacco and Vanzetti intrigued me greatly as I questioned the validity of the legal system as it clearly shows discrimination to the two defendants. The years following World War I have always substantially interested me with the economy prospering from the war and crime rate and gang activity booming. When I think of the 1920’s, I think of the prohibition, Al Capone, the infamous American gangster whose crimes revolved around the smuggling of alcohol; and the Red Scare. Also around this time, a vast number of Europeans immigrated to the United States, and many of them were German because of the recent fall of the Second Reich and the poverty that followed the recent war. Because so many immigrants are coming into the country, negative sentiments started to rise in the citizens of America which was bad news to Sacco and Vanzetti because it turns out that two robberies and a murder executed by Italian aliens have occurred in their vicinity and the two men received the blame because of their affiliation with a prime suspect. This entire ordeal vilifies the legal system as it breaks many of its own rules. First of all, the policemen violated habeas corpus which gives one the right from being unlawfully detained. I mean, what if a dog was murdered with chopsticks after being ran over by a badly driven car, and I was the closest Chinese guy to scene of the crime? But even worse, not only were they Italian aliens, but they were also anarchists. Because of the United States fear of the people’s opinion, they both were discriminated once again for their political views. The entire court case reminded me about Tom Robinson’s trial from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird because the evidence clearly showed that Robinson was no guilty just like the ambiguous evidence for Sacco’s and Vanzetti’s trial. All the evidence that could be accumulated against the two men was a couple of unreliable witnesses and very uncertain ballistics details involved in the murders. Also, the judge continued on about the conscience of guilt in the two men, but that can easily be justified by the fact they both were hiding the fact that they were anarchists who were probably more resented than immigrants. But apparently, as long as the defendants are Italian aliens and anarchists, the poor amount of evidence was enough to convict the two men. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the court needed solid, without a shadow of a doubt evidence to convict the defendants. I cannot vouch whether the two men were guilty or not because sometimes the glove does not fit.
ReplyDeleteThe epic tale Sacco and Vanzetti intrigued me greatly as I questioned the validity of the legal system as it clearly shows discrimination to the two defendants. The years following World War I have always substantially interested me with the economy prospering from the war and crime rate and gang activity booming. When I think of the 1920’s, I think of the prohibition, Al Capone, the infamous American gangster whose crimes revolved around the smuggling of alcohol; and the Red Scare. Also around this time, a vast number of Europeans immigrated to the United States, and many of them were German because of the recent fall of the Second Reich and the poverty that followed the recent war. Because so many immigrants are coming into the country, negative sentiments started to rise in the citizens of America which was bad news to Sacco and Vanzetti because it turns out that two robberies and a murder executed by Italian aliens have occurred in their vicinity and the two men received the blame because of their affiliation with a prime suspect. This entire ordeal vilifies the legal system as it breaks many of its own rules. First of all, the policemen violated habeas corpus which gives one the right from being unlawfully detained. I mean, what if a dog was murdered with chopsticks after being ran over by a badly driven car, and I was the closest Chinese guy to scene of the crime? But even worse, not only were they Italian aliens, but they were also anarchists. Because of the United States fear of the people’s opinion, they both were discriminated once again for their political views. The entire court case reminded me about Tom Robinson’s trial from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird because the evidence clearly showed that Robinson was no guilty just like the ambiguous evidence for Sacco’s and Vanzetti’s trial. All the evidence that could be accumulated against the two men was a couple of unreliable witnesses and very uncertain ballistics details involved in the murders. Also, the judge continued on about the conscience of guilt in the two men, but that can easily be justified by the fact they both were hiding the fact that they were anarchists who were probably more resented than immigrants. But apparently, as long as the defendants are Italian aliens and anarchists, the poor amount of evidence was enough to convict the two men. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the court needed solid, without a shadow of a doubt evidence to convict the defendants. I cannot vouch whether the two men were guilty or not because sometimes the glove does not fit.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began reading chapter eleven on “Sacco and Vanzetti,” I had recently read something about these two individuals before, but I had no idea that these two Italian men were accused of a robbery and murdering someone. As I was reading, I first thought that these two men were completely guilty for the crime they committed, and didn’t feel bad for them one bit. But as the chapter continued, I changed my mind very quickly.
ReplyDeleteLast year in U.S. history, I remember briefly reading about Sacco and Vanzetti and the Red Scare, but it was interesting to be able to read in detail about the case. One of the things that I got out of this chapter is that these two men weren’t being punished or judged for the crime they committed, but for what they believed in. Not only were they being judged for their beliefs, but they were in a country that wasn’t satisfied with immigrants. One thing that I found interesting from this chapter is that when the police were trying to identify these two men, they didn’t use a lineup, but they made them pose as bandits. During this time, many Americans wanted Sacco and Vanzetti to be prosecuted. Personally, I didn’t think the case of Sacco and Vanzetti was fair because you cant judge someone for their beliefs and say they were guilty of a crime they didn’t commit. These could have been two innocent men that were punished for something they didn’t even do and their lives could be ruined. There was only one piece of evidence in this chapter that made me wonder for a second if they really were guilty was when they carried guns and were getting passports made to leave the country. In the end, no one will ever know if these two men were really guilty. The court may be right for accusing them of a robbery and murdering someone, or they could have cost two innocent men lives to be ruined.
After reading about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, I believe that the thesis of this chapter is that there were flaws in the court system because people involved in the case put their personal opinions about foreigners ahead of the evidence. After World War I, crime became increasingly more common. Armed robberies happened more frequently which meant wealthy people had to keep a close watch over their money to make sure it was not stolen. Robbery was not the only crime being committed during the time following WWI; murder also occurred. One day in the early 1920s, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchists, became suspects in the murder trial of Alessandro Berardelli. They were arrested because they were "suspicious characters." I believe that it was not fair for them to be arrested without proof that they were guilty. They were treated unfairly because they were foreigners. For example, they were never told during the first two days why they were arrested. It seemed like the jurors and the judge thought they did not have to follow the typical court room procedures in this case because of Sacco and Vanzetti's political beliefs and backgrounds. I think they should have been treated the same as any other person on trial. On the day Vanzetti was to be sentenced, he stood before Judge Thayer and delivered a heart-felt speech. I actually believed almost every word he said. I guess that makes him a good, persuasive speaker, or me a really gullible listener. After Vanzetti's speech, Thayer declared the two men guilty. I believe that part of the reason for this final decision was because they were Italian anarchist. The evidence against them was very weak and unconvincing, but the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were immigrants was enough evidence for Judge Thayer to announce that they were guilty.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, during the time that Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested, a nativist movement was sweeping across the country. People began to despise foreigners and blame them for all of the problems in the economy. This was not fair to the immigrants. They should not be blamed for the decline of the economy unless they actually had something to do with it. This strong sense of nativism also led to more strikes in the work force. Some of the strikes were recorded to last over four months. A third of an entire year is a very long time, especially for a strike.
I believe that the Sacco and Vanzetti trial was significant and very helpful for our country. It "forced the nation to ask who in their own times best embodies the principles of freedom and equality inherited from 1776" (286). By the end of the trial, it was no longer a question of quilt or innocence. In my opinion, it had become a fight for justice and equality. It was almost like a wake-up call for some Americans. They were beginning to realize that the nation was divided, and it was time for that to change.
After reading this chapter I concluded that no matter how hard we strive to make a system non-biased there are always flaws. In this instance, it may have cost two innocent men their lives. Prior to reading Chapter 11, “Sacco and Vanzetti”, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were just two names to me. I was completely unaware that these two men had to undergo a great deal of prejudice and hatred in the United States justice system. After reading, “Sacco and Vanzetti” my outlook on the justice system here in the United States has been tainted. I have always thought that our justice system was supposed to be run by the idea that all are innocent until proven guilty in a just trial. Sacco and Vanzetti were both Italian immigrants who were convicted of robbery and the murder of the paymaster and his assistant of the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in Massachusetts. In reading this chapter it is apparent that both Sacco and Vanzetti were being convicted because of their nationality and political beliefs. The fact that they were both immigrants at the time was also a major disadvantage. These men were simply given an unfair trial. Instead of the trial being based on hard evidence, the trial was practically based on prejudice, political views, and the nationality of the two men.
ReplyDeleteThere are several references in the chapter that indicate that there was not hard evidence to connect the two men with the murders. Although, based on Sacco and Vanzetti’s being self proclaimed anarchists and having revolvers and ammunition on their person at the time of their arrests allowed them to be used as a scapegoat for the robbery and murder. It is blatantly obvious that the prosecution was having a difficult time making a case. Their “eyewitnesses” statements were not consistent in placing the two men at the crime scene, and there was also some discrepancy in the ballistics evidence.
The time period during which the trial occurred was also a factor that was detrimental to the outcome for Sacco and Vanzetti. It was extremely unfortunate that the judge that proceeded over the trial believed that the defendants were guilty prior to the murder trial. Instead of focusing on accurate evidence, the prosecution based the case primarily on “consciousness of guilt”. In my opinion, to try to convict someone of murder just because they act guilty is ludicrous. In summary, this trial was an insult to our forefathers who set laws in place to insure that all people would be given a fair trial.
Caleb,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that if more time had been spent on the case, the answer to whether the men were innocent or guilty would have been discovered. But since everyone wasted time hating Sacco and Vanzetti instead of actually further investigating the crime, there was really no way that they could truly be proven guilty. Maybe if people had actually tried to solve the case, they wouldn't have been accused of a crime they didn't commit, and a lot less time would have been wasted.
After reading Chapter 11 – Sacco and Vanzetti, I immediately started questioning the reliability of the United States government. To think that two men lost their lives because of their ethnicity and not because of any hard evidence is something that is so unfortunate, but sadly not shocking seeing as it’s the American government we are talking about. This chapter to me shows the true beginning of the corruption of the United States court systems, and the diminishing voice of the people of the United States. During this time Americans started to feel an increased sense of Patriotism, while simultaneously developing their prejudice towards everything “un-American.” In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Thayer, the judge, did not prosecute them on the charges of robbery and murder, but instead punished them for their ethnicity and political beliefs (being Italian anarchists was suddenly a justifiable reason for the execution of a human being). But what makes this case even more sickening is that against the beliefs of these men, Thayer weighed his own values and beliefs. Weeks before the trial, Thayer was actively giving speeches that promoted the idea that anarchist beliefs were a large threat to the American way of life. For me, this case gave birth to many questions about the government that I live under. How much can I actually rely on the United States government to protect me inside the four walls of a court room? Not only that, but how can I be so sure that I’m safe in my own country when the government has the power to easily regulate everything that I do? The main point is that even in a setting where things are to be analyzed based on no personal opinion; there will always be a chance of a personal bias upon the judge. I find it sad that at some point you have to question your own free will, not even in the aspect of religion, but instead at the feet of other people (who were born in the same fashion as you were).
ReplyDeleteChapter 11 Sacco and Vanzetti is not about how guilty these two men were but more about the bias and unfair treatment that occurred in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteIn years following World War I, crime statistics were greatly increased. Anyone that had large amounts of money had reasons to worry. On the beautiful spring day of April 15, 1920, Alessandro Berardelli was not careful enough. He was on his way to the lower factory building to get money and was suddenly shot dead. A few weeks later two Italians by the names of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were arrested for his murder. When they asked why they were arrested they were told that they were “suspicious characters.” I think were they treated completely unfair. The police had no real evidence to arrest them. I think that is totally unjust and partial. I strongly believe that if they had been native born Americans that the Bridgewater police would not have arrested them. This chapter was also a definite wake up call to me. It showed me how prejudice people really are. An example of one of these bias people is the trial judge Webster Thayer. It is astounding to me how much he got away with. When there was possible evidence that could have proved Sacco and Vanzetti innocent Thayer chose not to reopen the case. I do not understand how he was allowed to just do whatever he wanted. He was allowed to put his own beliefs before actual truth and evidence. He even allowed subjects to be talked about in the courtroom that would not normally be allowed because of it not having relevance to the case. I do not understand how anyone could accuse someone of something they know they did not do and then make them lose their own life for it. I think another prejudice man that is involved in this case is Fred Moore. Moore was the chief defense counsel and was not known for a hard worker. When it came to trial, he wanted all the credit and to play the major role. I disagreed with Moore’s decision of who was placed on the jury. There was not a single foreign name on the juror’s list. I find that to be very unjustly and just plain wrong. Another thing I noticed in this chapter is the one question it kept asking. No one could figure out why this case had become the focal point of one of the most controversial episodes in America. I think it was because it involved foreigners. Some people might have thought it was a big deal because they were so mad and so against foreigners. Other people might have though it to be such a notable case because of how unjust and prejudice it was. Either way the case of Sacco and Vanzetti will not soon be forgotten.
To WRAB
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading your post, and I am interested in many points within your work. I really want to know what makes you believe that Sacco and Vanzetti did not commit the crime because although not enough evidence was gathered to surely convince anyone who has common sense, there is still the possibility that the two men were in fact the killers and robbers. Sometimes the glove just does not fit. Nevertheless, I could not have put this social injustice in the Sacco and Vanzetti incident in such good words as yours. There is no doubt that social injustices thrived in the early 1900’s, but are you not amazed that it such sentiments are still alive this very day? Indeed, the society that the United States runs by needs dire repairs as prejudice and discrimination still exists in the modern day.
Often times on a lazy Saturday or a homework-free afternoon, I entertain myself, watching high speed chases and drug busts on the television show Cops. While not every case begins the same way, they all end with two or three criminals handcuffed to the ground listening to their Miranda rights. Unfortunately, the American law enforcement system did not always use to be this routine and just. In fact, “Chapter 11: Sacco and Vanzetti” provides a perfect example of the misuse of justice that proves the chapter’s thesis: the courts system of the 1920s was seriously flawed by prejudice and individual opinions.
ReplyDeleteTo understand the injustice Sacco and Vanzetti faced, the reader must first understand both the crime they were allegedly involved in and the issues concerning the country at the time. While Sacco and Vanzetti were in danger of imprisonment for murder and robbery, they faced the most danger because of the beliefs and heritage. Italian anarchist immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti lived in a nationalistic post World War I America where citizen despised foreigners for invading their country and taking their jobs. With the Red Scare also fresh on their minds, Americans sought to remove any radicalists from their country. These two recent events are what eventually led to the conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti, as there was not enough evidence alone to prove them guilty.
I am appalled to see Americans use the same unethical principles in removing unwanted foreigners that the Nazis employed only a few short decades later. Judge Thayer allowed his political beliefs and distain for anarchists to cloud his judgment and decide a case that clearly lacked substantial evidence of guilt because he merely wanted to “convict these men because they were ‘reds.’” Just as Nazis blamed Jews for criminal activity and flaws in the German government, sentencing them to death as punishment, Thayer blamed these anarchists for crimes they may not have committed, eventually sentencing them to their deaths.
I was also appalled to find that few checks and balances that are employed in other governmental systems could be found in the court system. Because Thayer had to approve all appeals for the case, Sacco and Vanzetti were denied more than ten times a trial with new and hopefully more impartial judges and juries. Even when significant new evidence appeared that could prove the two men innocent, Thayer was able to reject their appeal. Furthermore, because of the lack of checks, Judge Thayer and District Attorney Katzmann were even able to get away with “[violating] the cannons of judicial discretion” and manipulating cross-examinations to misrepresent the defendants motives. Additionally, another flaw in the court system became apparent with Sacco and Vanzetti’s jury of peers. As another safeguard against too-powerful, corrupt judicial officials pushing their own agendas, the court is supposed to provide the defendants with a jury of their peers. However, in Sacco and Vanzetti’s case, they were given a jury of natural citizens with disgust for radicalists, not a jury of immigrants with varied political views.
Although lives were lost in this battle for justice, the Sacco and Vanzetti case was essential to the advancement and improvement to the American government. The case opened the eyes of many Americans and demonstrated to them the unequal and unconstitutional prejudices that the government was letting affect the courts. By the end of the trials and executions, the American population was aware, that for the democracy of the United States to survive, these tragic flaws must be fixed.
tf
ReplyDelete