Sacco And Vanzetti Analysis

The Lizzie Borden case has mystified and fascinated those interested in crime forover on hundred years. Very few cases in American history have attracted as much attention as the hatchet murders of Andrew J. Borden and his wife, Abby Borden. The bloodiness of the acts in an otherwise respectable late nineteenth century domestic setting is startling. Along with the gruesome nature of the crimes is the unexpected character of the accused, not a hatchet-wielding maniac, but a church-going, Sunday-school-teaching, respectable, spinster-

Have you ever been too filled with hate and pride to see the obvious truth right in front of you? The year was 1935 in the small town of Maycomb Alabama. During this time an important trial would be taking place. The trial of Tom Robinson, an African and American who had been promptly accused of rape by the one man who had seen the incident. Bob Ewell a despised person throughout the community and the father of the victim, Mayella Ewell, Bob’s abused, lonely, unhappy daughter. Though one can pity Mayella because of her overbearing father, one cannot pardon her for her shameful indictment of Tom Robinson.

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti “two obscure Italian aliens, became the focal point of one of the most controversial episodes in American history”;(ATF CH11p257) when they were arrested on May 5, 1920 for “suspicious character” and connection with the Slater Morrill Shoe Company robbery. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested carrying hunting weapons and extra ammunition on the way to pick up Mike Boba’s car, which was believed to have connected them to robbery of the Slater Morrill Shoe Company that had occurred on April 15, 1920. Sacco and Vanzetti’s actions depicted “the kind of foreign menace American nativist most feared” (ATF chapter 11p 270), making them prime suspects for the robbery. However the lack of evidence that existed to convict Sacco and Vanzetti lead to the exposure of the fault lines that existed

A significant reason the courts continued with prosecuting Kwidzinski was that reversing the charges would make people question the legitimacy of the case all together. The state’s attorney’s office had already charged three alleged attackers. If there was any doubt of Kwidzinski being involved in the case there would be a problem with the lawyers of the other two attackers by trying to jump on the bandwagon to freedom. Even though Kwidzinski may have been justifiably innocent and wrongly accused, the attorneys for Jasas and Caruso would have claimed their clients were wrongly accused as well.

At the close of trial proceedings, the judge informed the jury that they could find the eight accused to be guilty even if the crime was committed by someone who was not charged. He also said that it was not necessary for the state to know the identity of the bomber or to prove that the bomber had read any of the articles or poster of the charged anarchists. Though the judge, prosecutor, and jury can be considered misguided in their bias and actions of injustice, some of the witnesses against the accused are widely acknowledged as liars. In comparison to the eyewitnesses of the defendants, every part of their details went against those of the witnesses of the police.

labor strikes of the early 1920s were fueled by wartime wage agreements. More than 3000 strikes took place, most of which failed. As a result, it caused the union membership to decline and created public fear and anger among the American people. The Red Scare spread the fear of communism into the U.S. the government tried to get rid of all the antiracists and racialists by arresting them and deporting through what they called “Palmer Raids.” As a result many people were unjustly accused of being communists. The famous “Sacco and Vanzetti” case was a highly controversial event involving two men who believed to be anarchist that were convicted and executed over an armed robbery. Much of the country argued weather they were innocent or they were

A notable incident of scapegoating from the U.S. is the Sacco and Vanzetti trials in the 1920s. In 1920, two men were killed in Boston and the suspects were described as Italian men. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, both Italian anarchists, were accused of the murders and sentenced to death. Although there was little evidence against these two men, during the time period there was a stigma surrounding Italians in Boston, and also a negative view of anarchists. Soon before the men were to be killed, another man and his gang confessed to the killings, however, the judge dismissed these confessions and kept the verdict. This case drew worldwide recognition and sparked protests throughout cities across the world. The two men were eventually killed on August 23, 1927. However, before the killing, Vanzetti spoke to the judge of the trial, and the speech was later published into a short story titled, “This is Our Triumph.” Vanzetti spoke, “We have proved that there could not have been another judge on the face of this earth more prejudiced and more cruel than you(the presiding judge) have been against us… Before you see us you already know that we were radicals, that we were underdogs, that we were the enemy of this institution” (Landau). This court decision scapegoated Sacco and Vanzetti because they were easy targets and people disliked their political views. However, Vanzetti revealed the flaws in the system, saying that he was targeted because he had radical views and even before the evidence was shown, he was an underdog. After Vanzetti gave this speech people began to realize he was completely innocent, but the city of Boston used him as a scapegoat for the murders because he was easy to blame. This reveals the flaws, both in the criminal justice system and the prejudice many societies have against a group of

Also reminiscent of the Scottsboro case was the fictional Maycomb County’s jury composition. In the novel the jury composed of solely white men, there were no blacks or women in the ranks. The lack of diversity within the novel’s jury is mimicked in the Scottsboro case. In Scottsboro it was state law that “any businessman or professional people could excuse themselves from jury duty for any official reason” (Hamilton 210). Thus was formed a jury of uneducated, white, landing owning, males, with plenty of free time, alas a jury that would doom and black man or women. It is on this topic of the loaded jury that the defense counsel for the Scottsboro case, Mr. Samuel Leibowitz, fought for the hardest. The testimony of Scottsboro’s registrar and commissioner, it is made clear the mindset of legal system in regards to black jurors. In this testimony the feeling towards blacks is clearly outlined, “no black man and no woman is capable of servin on a jury, supporting their contention with the declaration that, even though there were black people who were educated, held professional jobs, and good reputations, none had ‘sound judgment’ and ‘they will nearly all steal’” (12). Due to the setup of the jury system both Tom Robinson and the Scottsboro boys were dooms to a sentence of guilty even before they reached trial.

The case that shocked Chicago ravaged the front pages of newspapers, was the talk of the town, and became infamous throughout Illinois and the U.S. The savage and questionable murder of a young, sweet boy proved all anyone could talk about in summer 1924. The media went haywire when the details about the murder and motive seemed different than any before. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb committed a murder so violent and brutal that their excuse committing it was simply because they wanted to commit the perfect crime. The Leopold and Loeb trial contained so many nuances, twists, and turns that the media rightfully dubbed it the “Crime of the Century.” The trial Chicago v. Leopold and Loeb of 1924 brought together America by bringing awareness to capital punishment in the justice system.

Based on the infamous 1942 "Sleepy Lagoon" murder mystery and the resulting "Zoot Suit Riots" in Los Angeles , playwright Luis Valdez weaves fact and fiction to depict the fate of 22 young Mexican Americans brought to trial for a murder they did not commit.

By 1920, the Puritan legacy, the cant of nativist racists, the economic wars, World War One, the crime wave, and the Red Scare had conditioned the American people to fear and despise certain groups. These groups usually included eastern and southern Europeans. The arrest and trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti was fixated more on the battle between Anarchy and American traditions rather than the actual evidence the prosecution presented. The Red Scare played a massive part in this. The Sacco and Vanzetti case reflects the fears of immigration, immigrant crime and anarchy.

The Sacco and Vanzetti case was one that brought a lot of attention and controversy to American Society. Nicola Sacco was a shoemaker and Bartolommeo Vanzetti was a fish peddler both of which were Italian immigrants working in Boston. Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of stealing $16,000 from a shoe factory and murder of the pay master and the guard. In both Chapter 25 and Upton Sinclair’s letter the reader is still left an uncertainty of their innocence or in fact guilty.

Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who even though gained American citizenship, were still wrongfully accused and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit. Sacco who he lacked any formal education became a very skilled worker who earned high wages. He was a model of what American labor feared and, Vanzetti belonged more to the average immigrant who shifted from job to another. The case was one of the most controversial of the time. They did not receive a fair trial because of the anti-immigration beliefs of the time and the fact that they were anarchists.

The struggle for Sarty is that he wants desperately to believe in his father’s innocence. But he also knows that the Justice of the Peace’s verdict was not right. He knows what his father has done and he is immensely grateful that he was not forced to testify against him. At this point Sarty is still fighting with himself to remain loyal to his father. He even attacks a “boy half again his size” (Faulkner 6) for calling out “Barn Burner” (Faulkner 6) as they leave the hearing.

Schütz’ concerto is based on Acts 26:14 and depicts the attempt of Jesus to convert Saul to Christianity as Saul journeys to Damascus. This concerto was written in 1650, the early Baroque period, when much of the music composed was intended for the church and encompasses the passion and drama of that time. Vocal works such as opera, cantatas, and oratorios were gaining prominence over the instrumental works of the preceding Renaissance period. Saul was written in the style of a small-scale oratorio, a form that was distinguished by its religious theme with solos, choruses, accompaniment, and recitative. As in Baroque style, Schütz employed the basso continuo as opposed to the conventional orchestral accompaniment typical of the earlier period, which also brought into prominence certain instruments such as the solo violin. Through the use of dynamic contrasts and vigorous and varying rhythms, he has composed a three-minute concerto based on only one short sentence and two Biblical phrases. This essay will describe how Schütz achieves a cohesive, complex work by comparing it with three major elements of a short story associated with the plot: introduction, rising action, and climax (including resolution).