The Case against Sacco and Vanzetti
The Sacco and Vanzetti case is a clear indication of injustice in the fight against crime. Considering all the evidence of testimonies given, it is my opinion that the two were innocent of the crimes they were accused. The fact that they were Italian immigrants and known anarchists played into the hands of the justice system in the manner the case was handled. Trying a suspect based on their past is not the right way of pursuing justice for affected persons but rather an abuse of the judicial system.
To begin with, one of the witnesses Lola Andrews stated that she saw Sacco and Vanzetti at the scene of the crime and the car in which they drove away. However, one of the shopkeepers who knew her very well appears to claim that Lola had been arrested a day before to ensure that she took part in the identification. Lola tells the shopkeeper that she knew nothing about Sacco and Vanzetti (Frankfurter, 1927). This is a clear indication that the witness was harassed and threatened with jailing if she did not give false testimony.
Witnesses provided the whereabouts of both Sacco and Vanzetti. Both were not at Braintree, the scene where the crime occurred. For instance, an official at the Italian consulate in Boston reports that Sacco was at the consulate at an hour that made it impossible for him to have committed the crime (Frankfurter, 1927). Many fish buyers testified that Vanzetti was selling fish to them outside Braintree at the time of the crime.
The Sacco and Vanzetti case is relevant today because it shows a great violation of justice for the accused. Irrespective of the testimonies that showed how impossible it would have been for them to commit the crime, the courts ruled that they were guilty. This goes against the principles of natural justice. It is a clear case of everything bad about xenophobia and the impact it has on the judicial system.