The case of Mary Surratt, the only woman accused in the conspiracy to kill the President, Vice President, and Sec. of State, is an interesting and complicated case study in examining the right to a fair trial. This movie presents the case from the perspective of Frederick Aiken, a young lawyer and war hero. His perspective is particularly interesting and complicated, as it presents us with both moral and legal questions regarding wartime law, the use of the death penalty, and the role of revenge in punishment.
"'Equal justice under law' is not just a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society."
-- US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
-- Sixth Amendment
Blog Post: Response to one of the following prompts. In addition, respond to a classmate's blog post (it can be one the same prompt or not). Clarify by the titles provided which prompt you are responding to.
1.) Military Tribunals: Using the example of Mary Surratt or others, describe and discuss the critical differences between a civil court and a military tribunal. Why is the use of military tribunals with civilians controversial? Do you think it is appropriate to try civilians in this way? If so, in why circumstances?
2.) Trials in Wartime: Using the example of Mary Surratt or others, explain how war can change the processes of the legal system. How does public opinion play a role in cases like Surratt's? What differences do you notice about the trial due to its connection to the Civil War?
3.) Rights or Revenge?: Using the provided excerpt from Aiken's closing argument, discuss whether Mary Surratt's trial was about rights or revenge (or somewhere in between). Explain Aiken's comparison of lawyers and soldiers. Explain what you think Abe Lincoln meant in the quote used by Aiken. Do you agree with Aiken that the commission has the choice of "preserving Surratt's rights, or revenge?"
- Excerpt from Frederick Aiken's closing argument: "For the lawyer as well as the soldier, there is an equally imperative command. That duty is to shelter from injustice the innocent, to protect the weak from oppression and, when necessity demands, to rally to the defense of those being wronged. 'At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some transatlantic military giant step the ocean, and rush at a blow? Never! I answer, if danger ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.' Those words were spoken by a struggling young attorney. His name? Abraham Lincoln. Do not permit this injustice to Mary Surratt by sacrificing our sacred rights out of revenge. Too many have given their lives to preserve them"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2) Trials in Wartime
ReplyDeleteThroughout U.S. history, specific wars, most notably the Civil War and World War I, have changed the processes of the legal system. At the start of the Civil War in 1861, Lincoln was concerned with building a direct route from Washington, D.C., to the North. Concerned that Maryland would secede from the Union and the capital would be surrounded by hostile states, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington and Philadelphia, meaning that Union generals could arrest and detain anyone without trial who “threatened public safety.” Later, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus nationwide to aid in enforcing the military draft. After the suspension of habeas corpus, anyone who engaged in discouraging volunteer enlistments, provided comfort to the enemy, or committed any act against the United States was subject to arrest and trial in a military court. Though habeas corpus was reinstated in 1866, between 10,000 and 15,000 people were arrested before the reinstatement. These citizens were incarcerated without a prompt trial and were arrested at the discretion of local law enforcement officials. Additionally, in Missouri, Lincoln’s administration imposed martial law, and civilians suspected of aiding Confederate forces were frequently tried in military courts throughout the North. These military courts ignored constitutional requirements, had no juries, and required only a majority vote to convict. Intended to try only members of the army, the courts issued rough verdicts for civilians, sentencing them to hard labor or death. Clearly, the Civil War altered the processes of the legal system.
During World War I, the Espionage Act was passed to stem opposition to the war. The Act made it a crime, punishable by a $10,000 fine or up to 20 years in prison, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, or refusal of duty in the U.S. military forces or to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States. The law also allowed the president to censor publication of material that he deemed potentially useful to the enemy. In 1918, the Sedition Act amended the Espionage Act to make punishable the use of any abusive language about the U.S. Constitution, government, or flag. In both the Civil War and World War I, legal processes were changed to limit a citizen’s right to a speedy trial, a jury of his peers, and free speech, the writ of habeas corpus, and the press’s freedom from prior restraint. In these and in other wars, the legal processes of the nation were altered to punish opposition to government actions and create a citizenry willing to follow the choices of its leaders.
In 1865, Mary Surratt was arrested for being a member of the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln. Though there was some question as to whether Mrs. Surratt was actually guilty of the crime of which she was accused, Mrs. Surratt was convicted in a military court and was hanged. At the time of her trial, the public strongly supported her hanging, as it was eager to see someone be punished for the killing of the president. The military officials who tried Mrs. Surratt were well aware of the public’s opinion and convicted Mrs. Surratt in order to protect themselves from public wrath. Furthermore, the government officials involved in the trial treated it differently because of its connection to the Civil War. Mary Surratt was tried in a military court of Northern generals, men who supported President Lincoln and his cause. Also, the government felt that convicting Mrs. Surratt would bring closure to the end of the war and the death of the president. Therefore, in order to rally support for a new leader and move past America’s divisive conflict, the court ordered Mrs. Surratt’s death.
1.) Military Tribunals
ReplyDeleteIn a civil court, the accused is guaranteed the right to a public trial by an impartial jury of civilians. The presiding official is a judge, and a defense attorney is appointed by the judge if the accused cannot afford one. Unreliable evidence is not allowed, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. A military tribunal is designed to try enemy forces during wartime. Crimes are defined by the Defense Department, rather than Congress or state legislatures. The presiding official is a military lawyer, and has authority over what evidence is allowed. The presiding official also decides whether or not to close proceedings from the public. Instead of civilians, the jury consists of military officers. The accused can hire a civilian lawyer, or a military lawyer is assigned. However, the civilian lawyer can be barred from sensitive proceedings and certain evidence. While a unanimous vote is necessary to convict and sentence in a criminal court, a military tribunal requires a majority vote, except in capital cases which require a two-thirds vote. The accused is not allowed to appeal to a civilian court, but new proceedings can be recommended by military officers or commissioned civilians.
Military tribunals have been used throughout American history. They were used by George Washington during the American Revolution and Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812. Lincoln used military tribunals during the Civil War and suspended habeas corpus to control sympathizers of the Confederate rebels. Mary Surratt, a boarding house owner convicted of plotting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was tried in a military tribunal because of the more lenient rules of evidence. Government officials thought that it would be easier to find Surratt guilty in a military tribunal, rather than in a civilian court. Since the military officers in the trial were part of the Union army, they were eager to blame someone for Lincoln’s assassination. Surratt was found guilty and became the first woman to be executed by the U.S. federal government.
The use of military tribunals with civilians is controversial because tribunals do not follow the form of justice governing criminal justice. The accused is denied the right to public proceedings, a trial by jury, and the presumption of innocence. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Milligan that trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. In this controversial case after the Civil War, the Court decided that while the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, citizens could only be held without charges, not tried. Those who oppose the use of military tribunals believe that it is unconstitutional to deny due process protections. They worry that the government will set up an alternative justice system hidden from the public that is against the principles of American freedom and liberty. Supporters of military tribunals argue that due process standards would be obstacles to justice and exceptions must be made in desperate circumstances, such as during war. While I agree that situations are different during wartime, I believe that the use of military tribunals is not appropriate to try civilians because it denies the basic rights that are guaranteed to citizens.
3. Rights or Revenge?
ReplyDeleteMary Surratt’s trial was very much about revenge. The people involved in the trial (with the exception of the defense) only wanted to please the public. The public, obviously and reasonably, was outraged because of the assassination of their president. However, they wanted to have their own justice served, which meant making sure that someone received punishment for John Surratt’s actions and participation in Lincoln’s assassination. Since Mary Surratt was the only blamable person, she was, clearly in the public’s eyes, the one deserving his punishment. Aiken knew this and accused the jury of it in his closing statement by saying: “Do not permit this injustice to Mary Surratt by sacrificing our sacred rights out of revenge.”
Aiken says that "For the lawyer as well as the soldier, there is an equally imperative command. That duty is to shelter from injustice the innocent, to protect the weak from oppression and, when necessity demands, to rally to the defense of those being wronged.” He compares the lawyer to the soldier because he was both and knows that one of the most basic rules of both occupations is to follow that command. A soldier protects his peers on the battlefield, and likewise, a lawyer protects the innocent in the court, a political and emotionally charged battlefield.
Abraham’s quote basically says that the only way this country could have fallen was if it was picked apart from the inside out. He was warning that if we become divided, then we will, as a nation, “commit suicide,” and the country will fall.
I agree that the commission had the choice of choosing rights or revenge. Had they deemed her innocent, her individual rights would have been preserved, but no one’s revenge satisfied. Because of this, she was sentenced to hang by the neck, until dead, therefore gaining a revenge of sorts (because they executed her instead of her son). I feel that they could have met halfway and given her a less drastic sentence, like a period of time in jail. But the commission knew that this would not be good enough in the eyes of the public, so to the gallows she went.
I agree that Mary Surratt's trial was about revenge and not rights. I also agree that the verdict in the trial was driven by the Northern public's desire for revenge and not by the commission's examination of facts and evidence. The commission did have the choice of preserving Surratt's rights, but in the situation they were faced with, it was easiest for them not to honor those rights.
Delete3. Rights or Revenge?
ReplyDeleteMary Surratt’s trial was purely about revenge. The nation had just gone through a civil war that divided the country, and Southerners had just assassinated the beloved president who had gotten them through it. Secretary of State Seward, a close friend of Lincoln’s, wanted to put the assassination of Lincoln in the past by convicting someone of the crime and hanging them in the name of justice. When Aiken compares soldiers and lawyers, he was showing that lawyers just like soldiers need to defend the helpless especially when they’ve done nothing to deserve the punishment like Mary Surratt. Lincoln’s quote is saying that if a problem arises, we must work together to solve it or die trying. As individuals we are weak but united together no enemy is too strong for the people of the United States to conquer. I agree with Aiken that the commission has the choice of “preserving Surratt’s rights, or revenge.” They decide what the rules are in the courtroom, and more importantly they make the final verdict on Mary Surratt’s case. Like Aiken said earlier, the commission is made of soldiers, and it is their duty to stand for what is right even if it goes against the majority.
I agree with this completely. Mary Surratt was done great injustice in this trial. The commission was clearly blinded by it's hate for the south, and to grant her a true justice the commission would be a sacrifice of its pride.
DeleteThis is exactly what i believe. The commission was in the wrong and they would have killed anyone that sat in Surratt's chair. The trial should have been settled in civilian court.
DeleteI agree with Justin, the Union knew that the public demanded justice be brought to the assassins, or whomever was unfortunate enough to find themself in the position of Mary Surratt
Delete2) Trials in Wartime
ReplyDelete“Inter arma enim silent leges” - Latin for “In times of war, the law falls silent” was quoted in the movie, The Conspirator. This was the main theme in the movie because during the Civil War, like many other wars in U.S. history, the law has fallen silent.
In the movie, Mary Surratt victimized because of a potential connection in the conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. She was tried by the military, however, instead of the civilian trial that should have been given to her by the Bill of Rights. Because the North was outraged by the president’s assassination, they wanted someone to pay the price and, Mary Surratt’s life was the price paid.
There are other examples in our history including the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. In Hirabayashi v. United States which argued that the internment of citizens was illegal, the United States Supreme Court decided that since the country was at war with a country of the minority group’s origin, internment camps were allowed. This goes against our own principles.
In times of war, the law does fall silent as one can see by our nation’s history. Our own beloved Constitution is sometimes disregarded in dire times in fear of our own safety, and other times in the name of revenge.
2.)Trials in Wartime:
ReplyDeleteIn times of war the country is more worried about gaining popular support and building a strong base by keeping the public “happy.” This often means that the government goes to certain lengths to ensure the public's notion that justice has been served and criminals properly punished. It is also human nature to need someone to blame for different problems, which results in an extensive search for the perpetrator and/ or scapegoats. In the case of scapegoats, so long as someone is punished or serves the time, then Americans in general feel more at ease about the situation. In the trial of Mary Surratt the public merely wanted to see someone(s) pay for the assassination of President Lincoln, it didn't matter that the person on trial wasn't provably involved, someone had to be hung to help satisfy public demands.
Because Mary Surratt's trial was during the Civil War there was not much, if any noticeable, partisanship on either side. Each political party ardently spoke up for its Union/ Confederacy. This leaves little room for disagreement within a side; little room for disagreement or the desire to challenge the clear majority, it would be seen as treasonous/ un patriotic. So Mrs. Surratt was tried in a setting that offered almost no opposing opinion, because no one supported the Confederacy for obvious reasons. The only opposition, which the movie clearly portrayed, was a desire to be leagally fair, not side with the Confederacy.
I believe Cora hit it right on the nose. It was all about creating a happy public. The public wanted something tangible to "pay the price." Emotions were running around like crazy. The North hated the South. Soldiers died and then someone kills the president. At that point, everyone had forgotten the rights they had been fighting for in the first place and only focused on revenge. The secretary guy even said the people want security and the feeling that justice was served. Public opinion played a huge...sickeningly large...role.
DeleteI do believe Cora is correct to say at this time in America there was no option to be the minority. You were either for the Union ( Conferderacy if you were down South,) or not. If you went against the majority, it was highly treasonous. The decision to go against the crowd resulted in the public desiring for all potential members of the plot to kill President Lincoln to be gravely punished and the government was happy to oblige.
Delete@cora cornett
ReplyDeleteI agree that the government holds public opinion in a high regard during war and sometimes sacrifices democracy just to please the people. I also like your argument that the environment Mary Surratt was tried in was too hostile and almost impossible to have a fair trial
3)Rights or Revenge?
ReplyDeleteThe case against Mary Surratt was to seek revenge, the nation had just gone through the assassination of its president and was dying to closure in the whole affair. The Civil War was winding down and all was left to rid the world of the conspirators. The trial of Mary Surratt and the other accused was not a just trial. No just trial of a civilian would take place in a military court with a military commission of Northern officers for a Southerner. The government had the best lawyer, Attorney General, while Mrs. Surratt had Mr. Aikens only because no other lawyer would represent her for the fear of ruining his reputation and being suspected for conspiracy. Then when it came time for the trial, the prosecution called up very shady defendants and evidence to construct the case for Mrs. Surratt’s guilt. The whole trial was to seek closure and revenge. Mrs. Surratt was no longer a civilian but a conspirator. She was no longer protected by the Constitution. The government was concerned only retaining order in the country and was not afraid to take desperate measures to ensure there still was peace. Mr. Aikens was aware of this during the whole ordeal and was sure to point it out in his closing argument. There he that a soldier and a lawyer’s mission was to always protect the innocent and the civilians. He then continued with a quote from the dead President Abraham Lincoln.that discussed no matter how much the nation was entrenched in a conflict, rights established by the Founding Fathers should never be taken away. If we can not continue the rights, then what was the point of establishing the rights in the first place if they were not to be honored. Mr. Aikens choose to end the trial with the message to hit one last time that the commission had the final option to end this trial with revenge by ordering Mrs. Surratt’s death or preserving her rights by ordering a retrial or a life sentence. Sadly the commission was forced by Washington officials to continue with the revenge by ordering her death by hanging. They could have taken the high road returned Mrs Surratt’s rights but didn’t.
Rights or Revenge?
DeleteI think that this trial is an excellent example of how emotion and the desire for swift revenge can be obstacles to justice and the truth. Although the man most directly responsible was killed and Mary’s son was in hiding and even confirmed as being a key figure and Mary was not, it was Mary who died, and her son was even set free later on. The court was simply desperate for a scapegoat since it had not captured her son and said that the country needed to put the event behind. I f this were the real goal, would this still be controversial today? No, it wanted to punish someone for the terrible crime, and it was going to do so, whether the person was innocent or guilty.
In his reference, the real meaning, aside from the obvious, that lawyers and soldiers are both here to protect the innocent, Aiken meant that this kind of treatment to a suspect (a guaranteed guilty sentence, and henceforth, a series of murders) was really just lowering the public and especially the government to the same level as the assassins that were looking to kill a scapegoat when the murdered President Lincoln. I definitely agree with Aiken on the idea of a choice of revenge or protection of rights. Mary is being treated as if already convicted and is guaranteed death, when injustice is what Lincoln seeked to end.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that they didn’t take “the high road.” I agree with you that they should have protected Mary Surratt’s rights, but in their eyes, it was despicable that she would have taken part in such a thing, and it would have been on their consciences had they not punished her in some way. Mr. Aiken was appalled that he was even asked to defend her, because to him, it was not morally right. Also in their situation, they were probably more concerned with keeping the public in order than protecting the rights of “a conspirator.” What I mean is that in some of their eyes, they did take the high road.
Delete2. Trials in Wartime
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, Trials are supposed to be a fair and speedy trial. In times of war, everything about trials get jumbled up. The trials will not be fast or fair. They will be very partially, and will not change their minds.
In the case of Mary Surratt, the Union charged eight different people with conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. Mary Surratt was probably the most famous person who was tried in the conspiracy. This was because she was the only woman being tried. Every single one of the so-called conspirators were convicted and four were sent to death. Because she was a confederate, she got harsh treatment by the people who were jailing her. The trial ended being in Washington D.C. DC was in the Union. Everyone in the Union were especially partial to the confederates. Union supports were mad that these Confederates killed Lincoln. Surratt then was convicted and sentenced to hang.
Public opinion plays a huge role in shaping the country and shaping what people think. The public opinion in the Surratt case was that she should die like what Lincoln did.
Trials in wartime change people’s opinions. The whole trial changes. The constitution will take a backseat for the revenge of the people. If there are dividing factions between two different groups and one of the groups people get taken, the other group will try the persons of the others and they will be very willing to convict. The civil war and the Lincoln killing were a perfect example of this. When the Union was convicting people, they were willing to convict confederate persons for their own ideas. If a confederate was tried, the Union people would definitely convict them to help the Union.
I agree that public opinion plays a huge role. When something like an assassination happens, people want someone they can blame, and won't be happy until someone is convicted. The government wants to keep the people happy during war, so they will go to lengths to make sure someone is convicted.
Delete3. Rights or Revenge?
ReplyDeleteMary Surratt’s case had nothing to do with rights—it was all about revenge. When it comes to war, there is a great amount of tension within the nations involved, especially in the cases of civil wars. When the North won America’s Civil War, the South remained very aggressive and angry. A group of “conspirators” set out to settle the score, which resulted in the death of President, and Union leader, Abraham Lincoln. It was said that Surratt was guilty of conspiring along with the group of southern men, as she allowed them to enter her home to hold meetings in secret, though she did not plot along with them. The trial was fueled by sorrow and rage at the president’s death, thus the North did not take into account Surratt’s innocence and she was to be hanged. Surratt was denied a trial by a jury of her peers, and her lifetime sentence in jail changed to the death sentence—these are not rights.
In Aiken’s closing argument he states, “For the lawyer as well as the soldier, there is an equally imperative command. That duty is to shelter from injustice the innocent, to protect the weak from oppression and, when necessity demands, to rally to the defense of those being wronged.” When he says this, he is trying to get across a point that he thinks should be obvious. As soldiers protect civilians and his fellow fighters, lawyers are to protect the innocent in court. It matters not what state the country in nor the emotions involved; the innocent shall remain innocent by their rights brought to them by the law.
Aiken also uses a quote by the recently deceased President Abraham Lincoln. The quote, in summary, states that the nation must remain strong and get past all of the bitter arguments that come along, which will keep us from being overcome. If destruction is in the fate of our country, it will be because we divided ourselves and let the nation fall weak.
I very much agree with Aiken’s closing comment. Had the council enforced Surratt’s rights, rather than seeking their own political and personal revenge, she probably would have walked free. Instead, the council unleashed their anger upon anyone who they could pin the crime on. Why? For revenge. Perhaps they did it only subconsciously, truly believing it was the right thing to do, but Mary Surratt’s death should not have been inevitable as a result of the feelings from a Union council.
I agree that Mary Surratt’s case was about revenge. It is clear that people did not care whether or not Surratt was given the right to a fair trial. Although Aiken said in his closing argument that the innocent should be protected in court, the minds of the military officials were already made up. Also, there was no chance of Surratt walking free because if the court hadn’t gotten revenge, then the public would have. The assassination of Lincoln turned the North against the South even more, and people were convinced that Surratt was guilty. Surratt’s trial was not about proving her innocent or guilty; it was about getting revenge by finding her guilty.
Delete1.)Military Tribunals
ReplyDeleteCivil courts and military tribunals differ greatly in their procedures. A civil court consists of a judge, a defending attorney, a prosecuting attorney, and jury of peers. In a military tribunal there is no judge or jury of peers, but rather military officials acting in place of a judge and jury. In a civil court the Exclusionary Rule applies, which states that evidence from unreasonable search and seizure can be excluded from the trial. However, in a military tribunal, there are relaxed rules for allowing evidence and the Exclusionary Rule does not apply. The Secretary of Defense can authorize the use of evidence, whether obtained illegally or not. As guaranteed by our Constitution, those being tried in a civil court have the right to a speedy trial. This does not apply to those being tried in a military tribunal. Finally, verdicts must be unanimous in a civil court. In a military tribunal, this is only true in capital cases, otherwise only a 2/3 vote is needed to convict.
Military tribunals have been used throughout US history. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington ordered Major John Andre to be tried for spying. He was convicted and hanged. They have also been used in the U.S.-Mexican War and World War II.
This type of court is controversial because of the lack of rights granted to the accused. As stated by our Constitution, the accused have the right to jury of their peers and a speedy trial, neither of which are granted in a military tribunal. Those who are for the use argue that the traditional due process standards would make conviction very difficult because of the lack of eyewitnesses and testimonies. They also believe that a terrorist trial would turn into a media circus. Those who are against the use of military tribunals believe that they would allow the government to set up a justice system hidden from the public eye and opinion. It is also argued that they make Americans look bad for abandoning the civil liberties that we hold so dear to us.
I believe that in the time of war everyone wants an answer, so the government uses military tribunals to try to get answers. However, I don’t believe that the accused should be denied liberties that are given to us by our own Constitution.
3. Rights or revenge
ReplyDeleteThis trial was just about revenge. The country was blinded with their anger and would have sentenced anyone to death. THE way the court was set up was complete bias and had no essence of innocent until proven guilty. The way Aiken compared solders and the lawyers was very effective because of his experience in both posts. He meant that he was trying to defend the helpless that had nowhere else to turn and get help. This is a very good analogy because he was a very prestigious lawyer and distinguished soldier. Abe Lincoln’s quote was talking about the great strength of our nation and when we were united how strong we were in the wars previous to the civil war. It isn’t a war against another nation that could make us fall; it is the in fighting and the internal differences that could kill us. The commission has the duty to up hold the law not what they believe to be wrong or right. They should have given Surratt a trial in a lower court.
I agree that the trial was about revenge, but it was also about a little rights. Mary Surratt did know information on the kidnapping of Pres. Lincoln, so it was right for her to go to trial in my opinion. The way the Union court handled it though was all about revenge and the fact that they wanted to get to her son. They would not have put anyone on trial. They just would have put any confederate on trial. Lincoln's assination was a big blow to the North and to the South. The North because they lost their leader and the South because they had already surrounder and they knew that the North was going to come after them. Fredrick Aiken was the right person to have on this case because he saw the issue from both sides. He was a soliders for the Union Army. He was also a lawyer who wanted to follow the constitution even in times of crisis. He should be a role model to all lawyer's for doing the right thing even if you personally think it's the wrong thing to do. Mary Surratt should have gotten a trial in a lower court, but if it wasn't for her, The U.S. would not have had a supreme court case that changed how trials have to be run in times of crisis.
DeleteRights or revenge? Everyone wanted revenge. The war caused a lot of emotion. Many people died and the North and the South had a lot of hard feelings toward each other. What Fredrick Aiken was trying to say was that the men who died, died for the very rights that Mary Surratt was being denied. He said that as a soldier and a lawyer his job is protect people's rights. Mary Surratt was trialed in a biased court that wanted revenge. They wanted someone to pay. I agree that the commission had a choice. It was very easy to say she was guilty and condemn her to be hanged. They could have had revenge. It would have been easy to please the public and act on their emotions. Or they could have taken the harder path and allowed Mary Surratt to be trialed in a civilian court. And the whole thing was totally rigged. The public would not have been happy. It is not easy to forget emotions, especially in a situation where the president is killed during a time of war. I believe Abraham Lincoln meant the rights and freedoms we have fought for need to be preserved. We need to be the author's and finishers. We need to create and preserve them, even in hard times.
ReplyDelete2. Trials in Wartime
ReplyDeleteDuring times of war, the justice system became corrupt. A military tribunal of a civilian is the worst possible action that could of partaken. The Constitution was made for this very type of situation; so civil rights could not be suppressed in times of emotional instability. In the case of Mary Surratt, she was charged in a military tribunal ordered by Stanton, in order to secure swift guilty verdicts and executions for the public that demands them.
Public opinion has a high contributing role in the justice system. The people were angry and wanted revenge. If the tribunal voted Surratt not guilty the public would be enraged, and the public might have revolted. It was not just this fear but the anger felt by the tribunal that they voted irrationally. The hatred felt toward the South was prominent in this trial. No one wanted justice, only revenge.