There are many instances where an individual or group was killed purposefully because of their beliefs. In the 1920s, Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were falsely accused of crime and eventually executed. There has been much debate over whether or not the crime was discriminatory, based on spurious evidence. Sacco and Vanzetti were killed because they were Italian immigrants and were anarchists. The Sacco and Vanzetti case had a revolutionary impact on society because of major acts of injustice and misconception.
Ferdinando Nicola Sacco was born in Torremaggiore, Italy on 22nd April, 1891. At the age of seventeen, he emigrated to the United States. Bartolomeo Vanzetti was born in Villafalletto, Italy on 11th June, 1888. At the
…show more content…
“At 3:00 P.M. on April 15, 1920, F.A. Parmenter, a shoe factory paymaster, and guard, Alessandro Berardelli, were murdered” (“Sacco and Vanzetti Case”). “[Both] were carrying $15,776 of factory payroll through the main street of South Braintree, Massachusetts” (D’Attilio). The criminals were not caught at the scene, so police set up traps in order to catch them. On May 5, 1920, Sacco and Vanzetti were caught in this police trap and were accused of committing the Braintree crime based on little evidence and few witness approvals (D’Attilio). “[Sacco and Vanzetti] were indicted on September 24, 1920 and put to trial on May 31, 1921 at Dedham Norfolk County” (“The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti”). The trial would decide whether or not Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty for committing the crime. Witnesses came to aid Sacco and Vanzetti’s case. “Although 61 witnesses said they had seen them [at the scene of the crime], the defense had 107 witnesses alleging that they had seen them somewhere else when the crime was committed” (“Who Were Sacco and Vanzetti”). Sacco and Vanzetti’s witnesses were Italian and spoke English imperfectly, so their testimony, the majority in translation, didn’t convince the American jury. Although the number of supportive witnesses out-numbered those who blame them for committing the crime, the jury still wasn’t
The news article that I decided to do my assignment on is about a bank manager, Debra Anne Chapin, that embezzled 2 million dollars from a bank. The news article’s title is, “Former manager jailed for cheating bank out of $2M; Woman used cash to pay bills, gamble and feed her cocaine habit.” The crime took place in Calgary between June 1, 2006 and June, 30 2008. This embezzlement is a classic case of white collar crime and demonstrates numerous criminological theories.
Two years later, the former undercover New York City narcotics detective testified in the Brooklyn Supreme Court, that the Brooklyn South and Queens narcotic squads had been framing innocent people routinely by planting evidence, in order to reach arrest quotas. “It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators” , he recounted during his
demand a ransom. The money was to be thrown off a moving train at a
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti -- were they guilty or just victims of circumstance? You decide. This case was one of the most controversial court cases in America's history and soon you will know why.
The more notorious the case, the greater the number of prospective informant. They rush to testify like vultures to rotting flesh or sharks to blood. The are smooth and convincing liars(George Carlin, p.1).” Jailhouse informants are a major factor to convicting innocent people. Using informants makes an unjust and unfair trial. The Thomas Sophonow case used jailhouse informants to convict Sophonow of a crime he did not commit. Thomas was convicted of murdering Barbara Stoppel at the Ideal Donut Shop in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Thomas has a highly suspect and was brought to jail. Three informants claimed that Thomas has confessed to them that he had murdered Barbara. All three informants lied on the stands. Mr. McQuade who was one of the informants testified under duress. Two police officers had told him that if he did not testify against Thomas voluntarily, the Crown was going to exposed him of being an informant. Another informant was Mr. Cheng who was charged with 26 counts of fraud. He hoped if he testified against Thomas his charges were to be dropped and luckily for him they were. The last informant was Mr. Martin who was described as “a prime example of convincing mendacity of jailhouse informants. He seems to have heard more confessions than many dedicated priest(Sarah Harland-Logan, p.1).” There were other 11 informants who were eager to give false testimony
There was no one who could place them at the crime and both men had solid alibis and witnesses who testified on their behalf. After going to a garage to claim a car that was connected to the crime Sacco and Vanzetti were charged with the crime. Both men were carrying guns and neither had a criminal past. The two men were found guilty on July 14, 1921 anarchist and radicals moved into action claiming the trail was unfair and a mockery of justice (The Passion of ,1086). There was no money linking the two men to the crime There was no physical evidence to link Vanzetti to the crime. The Sacco and Vanzetti case was an unfair trial leading to the two men to be executed.
The Rosenberg trial, which ended in a double execution in 1953, was one of the century's most controversial trials. It was sometimes referred to as, "the best publicized spy hunt of all times" as it came to the public eye in the time of atom-spy hysteria. Husband and wife, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage. Most of the controversy surrounding this case came from mass speculation that there were influences being reinforced by behind-the-scenes pressure, mainly from the government, which was detected through much inconsistencies in testimonies and other misconduct in the court. Many shared the belief that Ethel Rosenberg expressed best as she wrote in one of her last letters before being executed, "-knowing my husband and I must be vindicated by history.
Few of the murderers were arrested and convicted of their crimes. Gangsters like Capone were able to use their money to bribe and payoff police investigators or intimidate potential witnesses. The police were also in chains by the refusal of any gangster to testify against another gangster.
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
In the “After the Fact The Art of Historical Detection” by James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle in chapter 11 “Sacco and Vanzetti” is about a series of crimes that happen in Bridgewater, MA and in South Braintree. The first crime was in December 1919 in Bridgewater. The crimes was a attempt of payroll heist in broad daylight. The criminals were unsuccessful in securing the goods and started a gunfight but no one was hurt. The criminals escaped the scene of the crime. In second case that happen in South Braintree, a shoe company had two employees transporting payroll boxes containing about $15,777. Their was wasn’t ready and their boss encourage them to walk the short distance. Then they were robbed when a couple of bandits shot and killed
In 1951 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and sentenced to death. The Rosenberg’s were the only American Civilians executed for espionage during the Cold War. People debated whether the
On August 23, 1927, Nicola Sacco and Barolomeo Vanzetti were executed in one of the most controversial legal cases in American history. Two men were shot and robbed in Braintree, MA, and two poor Italian immigrants were arrested for the crime. Although neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had criminal records, they both had pistols on them at the time, and followed a violent anarchist leader. Following their arrest, the seven-year case on the crime would drive national and international protests demanding their exoneration. There were numerous elements in the trial that influenced the guilty verdicts for the men including, but not limited to, weak evidence. The Sacco Vanzetti trial displays the social injustices and prejudice in American society during the time. It is evident that even though they are innocent, the court used Sacco and Vanzetti as scapegoats in this crime because of their beliefs and background.
Berns, Walter. "Getting Away With Murder." Commentary 97.4 (1994): 25. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 14
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
The St. Valentines Day massacre was an event that ended the whole war between the two gangs of Johnny Torrio and Moran’s North Siders. This event is probably the most well known mobster event in history. The North Side gangs was really getting on Al Capone’s nerves, so he sent his best hit men, “Machine Gun” Jack McGurn and others to make a new murder history. The men stole a police car, and drove to the place they were about to attack. There were seven men that belonged to the North Side gang. The hit team had all seven men stand up and face the wall. The seven complied, expecting a pat down search for weapons and identification. Then two of Capone's men opened up with Thompson submachine guns, peppering each victim with numerous rounds from the .45 caliber weapon. They acted as if they were police men arresting themselves as they walked outside and drove away. It was the perfect crime except that the main target, Bugs Moran was not there, and was still alive.