Interview ~ David Rothauser

What first drew you to the Sacco and Vanzetti case?

Two things drew me to the case. One was that I viewed the case as a great injustice. Two, Both Sacco and Vanzetti were peace activists. I was also a peace activist, so I felt an instant connection.

​

What interests you the most about the Sacco and Vanzetti case?

The two men's struggle to survive against impossible odds. The Court wanted them dead. They knew their chances were slim, but they never gave up.

​

What information you found during your research surprised you the most?

The most recent research I found was a 300 year old law (still on the books) called The Right to Allocution. That law could have saved their lives, but the judge and lawyers for both sides ignored it in 1927. That surprised me that their own defense attorneys did not invoke that law.

​

What does the treatment of Sacco and Vanzetti tell you about the judicial system at the time, as well as local sentiment about immigrants?

The judicial system at the time was inflexible and closely aligned with Federal Government to get rid of anarchists by any means at their disposal including Judicial Homicide. Italian immigrants as well as other nationalities were deeply discriminated against by the WASP majority. Being anarchists and atheists made it worse for Sacco and Vanzetti.

​

Do you think it was the fact that they were immigrants or anarchists that contributed more to their sentencing?

Mainly anarchists. The judge had an immigrant chauffeur, so he wasn't particularly opposed to immigrants. But he HATED anarchists. His mission was to rid America of subversive radicals (Communists, Socialists, Bolsheviks, Anarchists) and if that included immigrants, get rid of them too. When Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested they were never questioned about a crime, or told why they were arrested. Instead they were questioned for two days about anarchism, Bolshevism and about overthrowing the U.S. government.

​

What do you think people should better understand about the Sacco and Vanzetti case?

That's a tough question, but I would hope that people understand that the court system then and now is not designed to find truth and justice. It is an adversarial system meaning that it is competitive between the Prosecution and the Defense and the goal for both sides is to WIN. Even if the outcome is wrong, the end result is that one side wins and the other side loses. The winning side then claims they have created JUSTICE.  The losers generally don't say anything. Truth is seldom mentioned.

​

If people take one thing away from this case, what would you like it to be?

He case was a miscarriage of justice.  Two men were victims of judicial homicide without just cause.

​

Do you think problems still exist today in the judicial system regarding immigrants and unfair treatment of them? And if so, please provide examples.

Yes, problems still exist today in the judicial system because humans have not evolved very much in our way of thinking and behavior. The first example that comes to mind is the U.S. military  prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) inspected the camp in June 2004. In a confidential report issued in July 2004 and leaked to The New York Times in November 2004, Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, and use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States government reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings at the time. Another example is closer to home. The policing of immigrant communities directly puts people into the criminal justice system, often as a result of profiling based on race, gender, gender identity, and/or perceived sexual orientation. Once immigrants are caught in the net of police and the criminal courts, they are taken to the immigration system for scrutiny and possible deportation, being punished twice, even if they have done nothing wrong.

​

How do you think we can overcome these issues today?

In terms of immigrants, I think we need to start by removing the label, "immigrant." They are humans just like all of us. The labels, "immigrant" or "alien" immediately generates a negative image....'They are not like us.'  'They are strange and don't speak English, so we call them "dumb immigrants."' Once we recognize newcomers as humans we need to abolish the term "illegal immigrants." The America we know today was founded by foreign people who were not labeled "immigrant." Before that American Indians lived on the land and welcomed newcomers as equals. America, from an Indian point of view was never meant to be owned by anyone. It was  a free continent. Obviously we cannot return to that way of life, but our government can change laws so that they (government) are responsible for helping newcomers find jobs, education and shelter. We are the richest nation in the world. There is no reason we need to exclude and discriminate against newcomers because of our economic laws that favor corporations over people.

 

Do you think there will ever be a time where the judicial system will treat everyone fairly?

Yes, but not soon. Legislators who write the laws are human and capable of change, but they have created a rigid, conservative system that they are comfortable with. Its very difficult to change laws that are practically written in stone that only judges and lawyers can understand. Take any legal document. Try to make sense out of it. Unless you're a law scholar, you can't. You need to hire  a lawyer to interpret it for you - in your own language! In a criminal case each attorney interprets the law in his/her own interest - to win the case...the benefit to the client is secondary. Winning is everything in a criminal. After all that, I have faith in humanity. Inside every cold, detached, self-serving prosecutor of criminal law there resides a compassionate, caring, understanding human being capable of giving and receiving love. Its not an original idea. Yet love in all its forms is the key to life's problems.

​

Do you think they’re guilty or innocent?

I am convinced they were innocent. There are many reasons, but one that stands out is that the Department of Justice of the U.S. Government had a secret agreement with the District Attorney of Norfolk County, MA to get rid of Sacco and Vanzetti by deportation if they had committed an anarchist crime. If they could find no evidence that S and V committed a Federal crime, then the Justice Department and the DA agreed to connect them to a civil crime to get rid of them. As it turned out they found that S&V had committed no crime, anarchist of civil. By law the DA was supposed to share this information with the defense lawyers, but they kept it a secret. The defense learned about the secret after the trial, but by then it was too late. Another reason I believe they were not guilty is that a Boston Globe reporter Charley Whipple, interviewed one of the detectives who examined Sacco's gun to determine if the fatal bullet had been fired from it. The detective told Whipple that 'we switched the barrel on Sacco's gun to get a conviction.' As a young reporter, Whipple kept this interview a secret for 50 years. When he finally made it public it was 50 years too late.  A third reason I believe they were innocent is that Governor Dukakis did his own study of the case and made a state proclamation that cleared Sacco and Vanzetti's names of any crime. Still many people believe they were guilty.