I just got back from watching the movie 'The Conspirator'. The movie is based on the trial of Mary Surratt, a co-accused in the Lincoln assassination. This is the first movie of the 'American Film Company' and is directed by Robert Redford.
While being wonderfully executed, with good performances by the actors, the movie makes one realise human nature. Whether what the movie portrays is verifiable fact or plain fiction, the movie shows Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's secretary of war knowingly affecting and forcing or convincing others to comply to a trial who's outcome was predetermined. time and again the antagonists of the movie make statements like and to the effect 'Inter arma enim silent leges' which means 'In times of war, the law falls silent'. Time and again Edwin Stanton is shown saying that the said trial must be finished as soon as possible and all the accused must be hung and buried. When confronted saying that it was John and not Mary Surratt who was guilty, his line is 'I'll take whichever one I get'.
This shows us a couple of things, firstly the law, the law as defined to quite an extent by the constitution, is trusted upon us humans to enforce. But what happens when the ones who are charged to enforce and uphold the law in order to provide proper and fair trial to all, decide to abandon it? How do you defend the innocent in that case? Is it really justified to abandon the law and the truth in order to save a country? Is a government saved by injustice and atrocities towards it own citizens, willing or otherwise, really worth saving?
Secondly, is capital punishment justified? One of the last lines of the movie as spoken by John Surratt where he states, 'I really did not think they would kill her'. 'Kill' her. This implied she was killed or murdered by the state. Now the trial as portrayed in the movie really shows that the sentence was far from justified. Per Wikipedia, many American Presidents have also written stating that Dr. Samuel Mudd commited no crime. Luckily he was pardoned. But what or Mary? If the conclusion of the trial can be questioned after these years, what of the sentences executed? What if tangible evidence surfaces showing that Mary Surratt was in truth not guilty? How will the state correct itself? Is there anyway to do it? Capital punishment assumes a fair trial and an exact conclusion. But if the conclusion can be questioned, why not the sentence? Should the state really have the right to kill or murder its own citizens to protect others it feels is threatened? And if the conclusion is proven incorrect after the sentence is carried out, doesn't the state and the courts and the society as a whole become guilty of a murder?
Your thoughts please.
