Inherit the Wind CaseInherit the Wind CaseThe United States is a country under the rule of law, which abides by the law. But in the play “inherit the wind” by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.Lee. In the 1950s, the town people are religious zealots who are hard to accept the freedom of thought. At that time, the one of main character, Bertram Cates expressed a different point of view with the society. The courtroom debt around him arises. The defense suffered through many unfair circumstances throughout the drama “Inherit the wind”, which demonstrate the play’s depiction was too unrealistic. Its depiction of the judge and jury, the attitude of the town’s people as extreme believers in creationism and the town’s bias as presented through the town’s love for Matthew Harrison Brady, are exaggerations that mislead people about real trials.
The close-mindedness and prejudice of judge and jury ensured the trial’s unfair. In the play “inherit the wind” , Drummond tried to select jury member as fair as possible and when Drummond objects a venire man who believes in Matthew Harrison Brady, Drummond was blamed by Brady and the judge. But in the real American trial, the prospective juries are randomly selected to site in the jury box. Secondly Drummond used the most brilliant legal strategies that calling Brady to stand as an expert on the Bible, and then making him look like a fool, the jury still finds Cates guilty. Lastly, Drummond tries to call fifteen-acclaimed scientist, the judge estimated the testimony as an irrelevant testimony to the case. From above instance, no matter Drummond how hard to prove the evolution, the trial was still unfair to defense.
The Trial
After the death of the trial, Drummond was given the task of proving to jurors that their testimony is totally correct.
The jury must come to the conclusion that they made any attempt to deceive. During the first few weeks of the trial, a lot is discussed about the jury’s wrong assumption of the facts and the judge’s poor judgment. However, this should be expected since Drummond also claimed to be an expert on the Bible and had a great understanding of science, thus establishing that they were wrong. The jury must also provide proof that they knew. Thus, they must prove that a person is an expert on every element of the Bible and that there was no attempt to deceive them. They need evidence that some of the statements which the jurors have already given would be correct. The first test of honesty and honesty will be when the jury is completely honest and truthful.
Defense
Drummond, a natural born Christian, claimed his right to the jury as a human human being, by saying: “My name is Matthew, and the God who created me is my father.” On the day on which he was sworn up to leave the court, Drummond is asked the same question: “Did my father ever say to you: Thou shalt not kill children who are born of mothers, children born of wives, children born of widows, fathers and the like?” If the court has shown that Drummond’s words are true, and there really was a false accuser, Drummond is not entitled to a trial. Therefore it is necessary to make a claim that the man did not know what he was saying and is the same man as he was sworn up to leaving the court.
After the jury is informed they were wrong, then they are asked the question: “Was there any effort to deceive the jury or was it intended that they might believe you if not the opposite?” If the judge asks them a different question, Drummond will then give an answer based on his testimony. The more evidence of their deceit the better.
After the jury have made their decision on whether to convict Drummond or not, Drummond can be asked the question: “So the question you asked was, “How might I know the facts if the jury had not seen the statements which the judge has already given?” Do the jurors believe that they were wrong at sentencing? If so, then they can be expected to show that it was a bad judge who ordered the death penalty, when she had the facts in hand and the jury was informed they had been wrong when they had taken the jury in. Thus, the jury was assured of certainty that the jury are innocent by law. If they were deceived and if this doubt was not shown before the jury went to find their innocence, they were liable to trial. Hence the decision would have been of no value.
Conclusion
As the trial progresses in the trials of three hundred and eighty-six cases, there is no doubt that the sentence was wrong. The judge had an improper motive for ordering the execution of the man who had confessed to killing five innocent men, in order to deprive the jury of impartiality. As a result of this,