The Drama of the Court

June 20 issue - From ancient Greek plays like Aeschylus' tragic "Oresteia"—literature's first courtroom drama—to modern successors such as "Twelve Angry Men," the dispensing of justice has always provided a stage for high principles and base emotions to collide irresistibly. Today, townspeople no longer gather to watch with bated breath the outcome of an ordeal by fire or water, as they did in the Middle Ages. But millions tune in to the modern equivalent: televised trials. Now, in a wide-ranging history, "The Trial: A History From Socrates to O. J. Simpson" (336 pages. HarperCollins), British barrister Sadakat Kadri explores our enduring fascination with the drama of the court.

Kadri has a storyteller's eye for lively detail, noting that renowned classical lawyer Cicero thought courtroom speeches should always be made with the right hand extended like a weapon, and energetic passages emphasized with a vigorous stamp of the foot. (When all else failed, Cicero boasted of twice winning acquittals by throwing dust into the judge's eyes.) But Kadri also takes a measured step back to examine exactly what criminal trials achieve and why audiences find them so compelling, from the medieval Inquisition to the modern war-crimes tribunals at The Hague. He emphasizes that throughout history, criminal trials have often been about more than an individual's innocence or guilt; they appeal to our need for vengeance, the desire to see the natural order restored.

Beneath the apparent sophistication of modern, Western judicial systems, with their rafts of rules and procedures, Kadri suggests this primitive attitude to justice still endures. The lethal lunacy of 17th-century witchcraft trials arose not because they focused on evils that did not exist, but because "they allowed for punishment on the strength of panic alone." Emergency powers, invoked to combat terrible crimes since the days of witchcraft, have raised their head more recently. Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz made the provocative suggestion after 9/11 that the U.S. Constitution be amended to permit judges to issue torture warrants in cases where lives were at imminent risk.

Dershowitz's idea, which neglected to consider the possibility that the suspects might be innocent, highlights a broader shift in the law. The United States, in particular, Kadri says, has departed from an era when the bold defense lawyer was heralded on stage and screen. Back then, the deeply held prejudices of an entire society could be ripped from the roots and exposed to scrutiny, as in Gregory Peck's steely portrayal of defender Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird." Today, popular audiences of shows like "Law and Order" clamor again for vengeance, and the prosecutor is on top. Kadri understands all too well that a courtroom may be filled with drama, but his thoughtful book highlights why lack of reason—and an indiscriminate desire to inflict punishment—must not be allowed to prevail.

   Rate this story    Low    High

Print this Email this Blog this  IM this

MORE FROM NEWSWEEK: INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS

Newsweek: International Editions Section Front

• Your Heart: The Latest Word in Research • Fashion: Designer Knockoffs Are Finding Success • Indonesia: Is Boss All Talk On Tackling Terror? • Newsweek: International Editions Section Front

TOP STORIES

• Fineman: Behind Bush's Strategy on Iraq • The Oval: Is Bush Getting Realistic About Iraq? • Terror Watch: Did U.S. Plan to Bomb Al-Jazeera? • Q&A: How Close Are We to an AIDS Vaccine? • Samuelson:  How GM Lost Its Competitive Drive

• N.C. carries out 1,000th U.S. execution • Non-Iraqi Arabs banned Iraq • Jury: Girl’s killer should be executed • U.N.: Torture 'widespread' in China • ‘Taliban’ note forces emergency landing