The Myth of the 'Hardened' Justice System
An 1892 editorial in the Post-Intelligencer argues against the notion that courts favor the wealthy, using the lengthy murder trial of Albert Friederich as proof that the poor received 'full protection' from the law.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
It is often said by demagogues who know better and by unthinking people who do not that the courts of justice in this country are organized to acquit the rich and convict the poor—that the rich criminal has small chance of conviction and the poor suspect small chance of acquittal. It is said that every artifice of the law is exhausted to clear the rich criminal, while the poor criminal must be content with one hurried trial and with attorneys whose interest in the case is perfunctory. An instance which in itself almost affords a refutation of these assertions is afforded by the case of Albert Friederich, who is accused of having murdered his friend, Julius Bcherbering, in this city. This murder, a most atrocious one, was committed more than four years ago. The alleged murderer was arrested at once. He has twice been found guilty of murder in the first degree, and has twice been sentenced to be hanged. But his sentence is apparently as far from execution as ever. His case has gone from the lower to a higher court, then back to the lower court, and now his attorneys are declaring that they will attempt to carry it to the supreme court of the United States. During all this time, there has been a general and deep-seated popular conviction of Friederich's guilt. Surely it cannot be said that Friederich has not been given every possible chance for his life. He has had the services of earnest and able attorneys throughout the long period of his captivity. Every court has been appealed to and every legal technicality has been taken advantage of in his behalf. Yet he is a poor man. At the time of his arrest he had neither money nor influential friends, and he has certainly acquired neither since that event. If he has received any financial assistance whatever, nobody is aware of the fact. His fight for life has been made for him by attorneys appointed by the court, and, though penniless and friendless, he has received the fullest protection from the law which he is charged with having violated so flagrantly.
“In view of such cases as this, it requires a great deal of hardihood to assert that the courts are organized to convict the poor.”
This editorial captures the perennial tension in American legal discourse between the ideal of equal justice and the reality of a system often defined by technicalities and delays. Today's debates over public defense resources, bail reform, and the 'poverty penalty' within the justice system reflect this same century-old frustration with legal accessibility.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.