Show trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since December 2006.
 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

The term show trial describes a type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. It tends to be retributive rather than correctional justice. Most of the time it involves a 'sin' and a 'planting of evidence'.

Show trials, which often take place under authoritarian régimes, albeit sometimes in a democratic country, far more often than not have the purpose of eliminating or suppressing the political opponents of an organization, such as a current government or a church. In the case of Joseph Stalin, the show trials were used for political, economic, social and military reasons. For example Stalin had many of the 'old bolsheviks' (long term members of the party) put on trial and exucuted so that he could bring his ideas forward with little to no opposition. The trials also scared the public into obeying Stalin's regime, ultimately making Stalin appear untouchable to any enemies. However, many of the show trials Stalin ordered were due to his paranoia and fears of assassination.

Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the niceties of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves: they have often signed statements under duress and/or suffered torture prior to appearing in the court-room.

Contents

[edit] Moscow Trials

Show trials were a significant part of Joseph Stalin's regime. The Moscow Trials of the Great Purge period in the Soviet Union are characteristic. The authorities not only pre-determined the guilt of the defendants, but also orchestrated the whole trial processes. Massive campaigns in newspapers and at numerous meetings shaped the opinion of the public towards the cases.

The authorities staged the actual trials meticulously. If defendants refused to "cooperate", i.e., to admit guilt for their alleged and mostly fabricated crimes, they did not go on public trial, but suffered execution nonetheless. This happened, for example during the prosecution of the so-called "Labour Peasant Party" (Трудовая Крестьянская Партия), a party invented by NKVD, which, in particular, assigned the notable economist Alexander Chayanov to it.

The first solid public evidence of what really happened during the Moscow Trials came to the West through the Dewey Commission. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, more information became available. This discredited Walter Duranty, who claimed that these trials were actually fair.

[edit] Nuremberg Trials

Main article: Nuremberg Trial

British jurist F.J.P. Veale implied, in his book "Advance to Barbarism" that the 1946 Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders amounted to a form of show trial, as the judgments were not rendered by a disinterested party, which is a key element of independent judicial integrity.

[edit] Combatant Status Review Tribunals

Further information: Combatant Status Review Tribunal,  No-hearing hearings, and War on Terror

It has been established by the Seton Hall study "No-hearing hearings" that the current CSRT's, as used in the War on Terror, are inadequate and biased in favour of determining a suspect "enemy combatant." This analysis by Denbeaux et al led to the following conclusions regarding Combatant Status Review Tribunals:[1][2][3]

  • The government did not produce any witnesses in any hearing.
  • The military denied all detainee requests to inspect the classified evidence against them.
  • The military refused all requests for defense witnesses who were not detained at Guantanamo.
  • In 74 percent of the cases, the government denied requests to call witnesses who were detained at the prison.
  • In 91 percent of the hearings, the detainees did not present any evidence.
  • In three cases, the panel found that the detainee was “no longer enemy combatant” but the military convened new tribunals that later found them to be enemy combatants.

According to Associated Press Mark Denbeaux said “These were not hearings. These were shams,” and called the hearings a show trial.[3]

A previous study, the Denbeaux study, had already established that 92% of captives at Guantanamo were not al-Qaeda fighters and appeared to have been captured by bounty hunters, in return for a $5,000 reward.

Acoording to the St. Peterburgs Times and Glenn Greenwald the CSRT's are show trials.[4][5][6]

With the Military Commissions Act in mind the Wahington Post stated:[7]

If the actual trials of the detainees are as empty and shallow and pre-ordained as were the Status Review Tribunals there is every reason to be mortified at the prospect -- made real by the legislation -- that the federal courts will be frozen out of vital oversight functions. If a regular trial court proceeding were this shoddy, this unwilling to perform a truth-seeking function, this unable to achieve a fair process, the judge presiding over it would be impeached.

Nat Hentoff commented simnilarily in the Village Voice:[8]

Co-author Joshua Denbeaux tells me: "The government's own documents proved that the government's claims that the prisoners were the 'worst of the worst' was a false and shameful public relations ploy . . . We hope that our reports will convince Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act and restore federal jurisdiction." If that happens, the prisoners could contest their conditions of confinement, their imprisonment, and their sentences.

[edit] The Trial of Saddam Hussein

The trial of Saddam Hussein has been regarded as a show trial by many of its critics.

Amnesty International has described the trial as 'deeply flawed and unfair', citing political interference which allegedly undermined the impartiality of the court [1]. As another example, an article in ZMag by Satya Sagar dated December 4, 2006 has criticized the trial for:

  • Regular failure to disclose key evidence to the defense in advance;
  • Violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them;
  • Lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge; and
  • Important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established. [2]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ No-hearing hearings by, Mark Denbeaux, Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner Students of Seton Hall University School of Law
  2. ^ Bush's War Crimes Cover-up by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, December 8th, 2006
  3. ^ a b Report: Gitmo detainees denied witnesses Lawyer calls legal proceedings ‘shams,’ by The Associated Press, November 17, 2006
  4. ^ At Guantanamo, America's own show trials By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, St. Petersburg Times,December 10, 2006
  5. ^ American show trials editorial, St. Petersburg Times,October 1, 2006
  6. ^ Possibilities for restoring habeas corpus rights by Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory,December 7, 2006
  7. ^ Gitmo Justice Is a Joke By Andrew Cohen, Special to the Washington Post, November 30, 2006
  8. ^ Our Own Nuremberg Trials by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, December 17th, 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/o/Show_trial.html"
In other languages