Talk:Show trial/Archive 1

Mentions only trials in the Soviet Bloc/Era...

Actually according to the definition stated on the top of the article many other trials could be show trials too. Many leaders of fallen regimes were tried on western courts, and were probably considered guilty long before the verdict. It would be nice to mention, with citations on various sources, why these trials can or cannot be considered a show trial. Not that I would agree of any crime or guilt commited by them, but the Nuremberg trial of the leaders of Nazi Germany, Saddam's trial, Trial of the leaders of the Balkan Countries during the conflicts in the '90s, Trial of Adolf Eichmann are very good examples of trials that should be mentioned and examined, to assure that Wikipedia is neutral and comprehensive, and also appears to be such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancsali (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, Saddam's trial appears to have been included since this entry was created. Rbyrne6722 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The current trial of Pussy Riot and other similar contemporary trials in Russia, Belorussia and China should be covered.Malick78 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No longer a stub

I removed the stub status because I feel this article is of ample length and content.

Templar's trials

I think that the 14th Century trials of the Templar Order should be added to the list of the show trials.

Nuremburg trials?

If you ask neo nazi groups, the neuremburg trials were nothing but show-trials, while I disagree I believe it may be enough to let it on the list

No they weren't Three things that are hallmarks of show trials are violated by the Nuremberg trials:

Reliance on Confessions:

Evidence beyond any confessions were presented. Mountains of it, including the Nazi's own signed paperwork in addition to eyewitness testimony, the the recorded words of the Nazi officials like Newsreels and their own publications.

Torture and other harsh treatment before trial particularly to get a confession:

By all accounts, including from the prisoners themselves and accounts give they given after they were released as well as before that they were very well treated. A far cry from torture.

Forgone conclusion and swift appealess retribution:

Some accused war criminals were acquitted and those who were found guilty had their sentences reduced including commutation of death sentences on appeal.

The same was for Adolf Eichmann's trial. Documentary evidence, including his own signed paper work was introduced and eyewitness accounts as well. He was well treated. While perhaps the result of the trial was a forgone conclusion, it was so because of the weight of the evidence, not that it was decided before hand.

The same maybe true for Saddam Hussein's trial. So far as I know only eyewitness testimony has been given but it is only at the beginning of the trial as I write this (12/24/05) He sure hasn't confessed to anything. I doubt very, very much he was mistreated despite what he said.

Perhaps none of these trials would come up to the standard of a criminal trial in a democratic nation with a reasonably well financed defense. However, when you put them sided by side with the Soviet, Communist China and Nazi show trials Nuremberg, Adolf Eichmann's, Saddam Hussein's and Slobodan Milošević's trial at the Hague come off as shinning founts of fairness and justice. The alternative, to let them just go is too gut wrenching to contemplate.

The Russel Tribunal wasn't a show trial since nobody specifically was on trial. You may dispute its findings, but no one was arrested without legitimate cause, indeed no one was arrested at all to say nothing about being tortured. No one specifically was accused of anything. Only a nation was. On this bases perhaps that cite should be removed as well. Hunter2005 07:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they are show trials, it says they've been argued to be show trials. An authoritative list of show trials is not the goal as it is too POV. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It probably just stuck in my craw too much that the Nuremberg Trials and the Stalin's show trials could be equated and I acted without reflection. I will discuss before I delete from now on (unless it is obvious vandalism). I can see how someone could see Nuremberg or Eichmann's trial as a show trial, but I disagree with that and yes that is a POV therefore it was right to cut it. It seemed like moral equivalency, sort of say that both the Nazis and the allies committed war atrocities (and the Allies did commit some) but stack together they pale to what the Nazis, Soviets and Imperial Japan did. I would like to see the argument as to why some would say Nuremberg was a show trial though, in the "There are some who say Nuremberg was a show trial because...." vain. Just stating the facts of course. I will try to come up with a con argument in the same mode, like "A legitimate trial is unlikely to be a show trial if it has these factors... That way both sides could flesh out the arguement Hunter2005 22:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The "alternative" was obviously not to "let them go", but to have an actual trial that met real norms of fairness. St. Jimmy 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including the Nuremburg Trials in this article. The source indicated to support that they were show trials is someone who "implied" that they were show trials. Is there any credible source/arguement that they were show trials? I don't see it here, although there is plenty to rebutt any ascertion that they weren't "actual trials" (as indicated in the article). 165.189.169.190 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Moreover, the text concerning "F.J.P. Veale" is unsourced, and if you remove it, there hardly is a coherent stoy left. Thus, it was better to delete the paragraph. And so I did.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't have a serious article about show trials without mentioning the Nuremberg Trials. The MWC trial certainly meets some, but not all, definitions of "show trial" since it was carried out, at least in large part, for the purpose of political consumption. The Nuremberg system was favored by the Americans and most especially the Russians, while the British had opposed it as pointless (they preferred summary executions). The Soviets wanted to exclude the possibility of acquittal, while the Americans wanted to maintain the indicia of legitimacy. Indeed the Soviets sent a judge to Nuremberg (I. T. Nikitchenko) who was a veteran of the famous "First Moscow Trial," that helped define the classic notion of "show trial." There was much tension between the Allies, who all wanted something different from the process. The result was mixed. Show trials need not be "rigged" per se or be devoid of the semblance of procedure (as many of the worst show trials are); they need only be held and publicized for the purposes of making a special political point (anything from ideological pedagogy to the installation of fear). The Nuremberg Trial had very important points to make and making them was naturally the first item on the agenda. Excluding any mention of the first Nuremberg trial in this context is POV and weakens the article terribly.

See: Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy: An Unfulfilled Promise, 63 Southern California Law Review 833, 858-61 (1990) (stating Nuremberg was "a political 'show trial'" designed to serve the goals of the Allied powers.).

Also see: Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory, and the Law By Mark Osiel, Chapter 3. (For a discussion on the possible positive merits of show trials in war crimes contexts.) And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Criticism for Mr. Justice Stone's candid comments showing the breadth of opinion on the matter.

........

The accused Nazi war criminals convicted of horrific crimes did not have scripted testimony supplied by the prosecution. All were able to plead not guilty -- and did. Such defendants as were convicted were convicted heavily upon documentary evidence that connected them to monstrous crimes, including military aggression, slave trafficking, plunder, and mass murder. Although none of the major figures could be convicted directly of murder (none is known to have personally shot, gassed, hanged, burned, or tortured a victim to death) they gave orders or convinced others to do so or that committing murders would be acceptable.

Beyond any question, the worst offenders -- those sentenced to death -- were effectively murderers. No controversy exists about the objectionable nature of murder. The Nazi régime never legalized murder, and it extensively used capital punishment for offenses far less severe than murder -- especially in its concentration camps. The Nazis were convicted under standards generally used against gangsters like Lepke Buchalter, executed in the US for murders associated with a criminal enterprise.

The Nazi government was itself shown as a criminal organization -- basically organized crime.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

trial of Saddam Hussien

The trial of Saddam is not a show trial. The incidence Saddam Hussien ia accused of are well documented, as are his personal supervision of the crimes in question. They show him on tape supervising.

Yes, I think we should cut out a lot of the examples, which are not considered show trials by mainstream sources. One can find the odd (fringe) reference calling almost any trial of a political figure for whom the writer has sympathy (or hostility for the prosecuting authorities) a "show trial", and the term can be thrown around quite casually. Everything from the Nuremburg trials to trials of Al Qaida terrorists have been called "show trials" by some.

Therefore I think we should stick to uncontroversial examples such as the original Moscow show trials, for which the term seemed to be coined.

A show trial by mainstream definition is not merely a trial of a political figure, but has other key characteristics:

1) It relies on a confession rather than other evidence (Saddam did not confess, and the trial relied on evidence such as videotape and eyewitness evidence)

2) The confession is extracted through torture or threats (No confession from Saddam, no evidence of torture) 3) The accused abjectly pleads guilty, in the hope of saving his life or his family, or to avoid further torture (Saddam was defiant in the face of death penalty) 4) The trial is a sham ie the accused is previously coached in exactly what to say (did not happen in Saddam's case) 5) The charges are patently ridiculous and the alleged crimes themselves have little or no evidence for actually having occurred, eg high ranking Soviet officials pleading guilty to having been virtually life-long spies for foreign governments or secret fascists etc (the crimes Saddam Hussein was accused of had much evidence for their reality)

trial of Saddam Hussien

Saddam Hussein's guilt or innocence has no bearing on whether or not his trial is a show trial. Although there is no tendency towards "retributive rather than correctional justice," or the involvement of 'sin' and a 'planting of evidence,' neither was this the case with the Nuremburg Trials. However, the trial of Saddam Hussein is very likely a "type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning" -- the very definition of the term "show trial."

The trials of Saddam Hussein are an important political tool in the United States, and Iraq Regardless of the damage that Hussein has done to Iraq and its people, the justification used by the United States government for the invasion of Iraq, that they possessed weapons of mass destruction, was unfounded. The attempts by the US government to connect the 9/11 attacks with Iraq were, and continue to be, deceitful. Amnesty International has expresed serious concerns about the lack of due process in Iraqi courts, and in the trials of Saddam Hussein in particular. If Slobodan Milosevic or Charles Taylor should be tried in The Hague, why not Saddam Hussein? The trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as conducted by an interim occupation government, has all the ear marks of a "show trial."

I think Saddam's guilt or innocence has everything to do with whether it was a show trial or not. Conventionally a show trial uses trumped up charges, often transparently ridiculuous eg the Stalinist charges of "fascist-trotskyist-zionist-terrorist conspiracy" etc, to which the accused is tortured into confessing to. There is no real crime, the show trial is used as a way of eliminating a potential rival or creating a climate of fear. A show trial lacks due process, but a show trial is more than just a trial lacking due process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Trial of Saddam Hussein

The trial of Saddam Hussein is a show trial. This argument is supported by many credible scholars and critics. Please do not let your personal passion affect your judgement. It is discussed in detail in trial of Saddam Hussein. We all base on articles by scholars, right? --animekill (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That list of references is impressive only in its breathtaking audacity.

You've got a law clerk who says it was more a show trial than not; a dead link to Newsweek; a letter to the editor in the Guardian; a leftist Canadian Muslim who's always harshly critical of the American side in the war in Iraq; an article in USA Today that does not call it a show trial, but does refer to a show trial run by Saddam in the '80s; Salem Chalabi, son of a political rival of the Iraqi PM; a Swiss lawyer who was hired by Saddam's defense; and a piece in MiddleEastOnline from someone who writes for The Nation that refer to a report from HRW.

This is not a wide variety of points of view.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

With Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now confessing to everything but the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and the 1929 Stock Market Crash, it seems to me this might be one trial to watch for this article. (I had to stick this comment here because wiki would not allow me to add to the very foot of the page.) Alpheus 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed suspicious paragraph

The Saddam Hussein piece was a bit short. I have removed the following paragraph to the talk page:

The article also concludes: "...Saddam's trial was also part of the political theatre that the US and its `Coalition of the Killing' wanted to enact to explain the death and injury of their own soldiers to their people back home. The message the trial was supposed to give to domestic audiences was that `it is fine for you to send off your sons and daughters to die' so that at the end of the horror show this infamous villain would have been finally brought to justice."

Using a phrase like Coalition of the Killing seemed to be a troll, but the whole paragraph comes verbatim from the article. I don't think this wordplay and tone is very encyclopedic. However, I have added Amnesty International's opinion about political influence. I have kept the list of points from the same article as they are often-noted criticisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PXE-M0F (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Combatant Status Review Tribunals

Thousands of scholars have called the Moscow Trials "show trials", similarly many have called Saddam Hussein’s trial a "show trial", but can we honestly call Combatant Status Review Tribunals show trials because one report from Mark Denbeaux labeled these as a show trial? I don’t think so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because there is one official report saying that and because numerous legal analysts (Jennifer van Bergen, Elizabeth Holzmann, Marjorie Cohn), commentators have said the same thing. Feel free to ask for references, but to claim that this is a solitary comment ignores years of newspaper articles.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So, a small number of fringe individuals (and yes for the record the NLG is a fringe group), who you have yet to cite, believe these to be show trials, and you don’t think that’s a violation of WP:Undue weight? Please elaborate on the other individuals who have called the CSRT's show trials, some mainstream people for example? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

1. The only person in the world who has had access to files from both the military and lawyers, and who has written several articles on this subject is considered non-notable?!
2. The NLG/Marjorie Cohn which has written numerous articles on this subject is considered irrelevant?
3. Elizabeth Holzman who was part of the Watergate prosecution is considered not-notable?!
4. Wikipedia clearly allows inclusion of the info you object to. There are numerous and notable people and organisations saying it and the sources themselves are so not-notable that they have there own article on wikipedia!

Concluding, there is no policy prohibiting this info (the opposite is more likely) so we can savely include it. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As the only person who has had access to files from both the military and lawyers and who is also council to many of the defendants at Gitmo, Denbeaux has an overriding self interest to present the hearings in as negative a light as possible. This is why his analysis should be taken with a caveat. As president of the NLG, Cohen could not be further from a reliable source. Her “creative use” of material to declare any conviction she does not agree with as the result of a show trial (she cited Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie’s book “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth” as evidence that John Walker Lind was not guilty). Any defendant she is even remotely sympathetic towards and is found guilty is automaticly the subject of a show trial: Mumia, Peltier and even that warm cuddly snuggle-bunny Slobodan Milosevic.

Extraordinary claims, like that claim that the CSRT’s are on a level with the Moscow Trials and the Purges, require extraordinary evidence (or in this case some extraordinarily notable people. Find a few mainstream individuals, or I am going to remove this again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you provide the criteria as to who is considered notable enogh I will try and supply the references. Just to be sure we have established that contrary to wikipedia policy you claim that several legal analysts observing that the CSRT's are showtrials do not meet your definition of acceptable source. So, how many references and by whom?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Denbeauxs are lawyers representing two of the detainees. That means it's their job to be biased. Their so-called "studies" are not objective in any way, nor should they be expected to be. They're about as objective as used car salesmen.

Treat their words with caution.

-- Randy2063 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to secondy Randy's thoughts on this. Denbeaux's overiding self interest here outweights his opinion. If there has been a significant number of imparital third parties that weighed in on this, there might be a case for inclusion, but otherwise, I think its a no go. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I am afraid the definition lacks emphasis that the main feature of a show trial is a public presentation of a trial "as real", only with all formal attributes of a real trial, only the defenders are not given a fair chance, e.g., broken by torture or denied fair defense. Still, it must be open to broad public as pretence of justice. All other uses are just metaphors. For example, Hussein's trial may be classified as show, since it was shown to publis. But I am not sure thta Guantanamo hearings classify as "show trial" They more fit the definition of Kangaroo court, since, if I am not mistaken, they are not open to broad public. Or are they? I don't follow politics much. `'mikka 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the CSRT's qualify as Kangaroo court. Nevertheless the provided sources used the term show trial. If you have references stating they are a Kangaroo court feel free to inlude it there.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. People may use various political epithets quite arbitrarily, and it is fine with me. Any trial that neflects some elements can be casually called "show trial". However there should be a big difference berween a "book example" of a show trial and casual reference to it. A casual reference in a newspaper deserves no more than casual reference in wikipedia, rather than a full-blown section. Once again: CSRT does not qualify neither as show nor as trial (in the sense of normal legal procedure or imitation thereof) AFAIK. `'mikka 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly policy allows mentioning it since inthe article there are at least 4 sources stating this. Why that should not be mentioned is beyond me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that it should not me mentioned at all. But IMO it is more than enough to have a single sentence: "many critics call CSRT a show trial because ...", rather than half page. Certainly there are quite a few other examples to be added here. `'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, will rephrase it, just give me a day or to. Busy right now.`'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Four sources calling CSRT a show trial does not make it so if all four sources are part of a disingenuous agenda-driven mindset trying to push anti-American propaganda.

As for CSRTs being held in secret, the same is true about grand juries and the competent tribunals that CSRTs are based upon. That aspect is definitely not anything like a show trial.

And since the Bush administration was compelled to create CSRTs by the Supreme Court, any "show trial" aspect is ridiculous.

If anyone wants to put CSRTs back in this article, it should clearly state what kind of people are calling it that.

-- Randy2063 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the facts

1. The Supreme Court has already established the illegallity, hence the need to adopt the MCA.
2. The secret part refers to evidence not allowed to see, no free choice of lawyers, no independant witnesses, et cetera.
3. To ignore known commentators by calling them "disingenuous agenda-driven" is not a good faith assumption. I*t shows your true colors: not presenting a fair story but deleting solid criticism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Guy, these are the terrorist's lawyers, they have zero credibility to make these kinds of accusations. I asked you before to find a good third party (i.e. not related to the cases) to weigh in on this. I can only assume that your failure to produce this means it dont exist. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nescio, I haven't misrepresented anything.

You're partly correct that the Supreme Court did compel the administration to create a system for keeping illegal combatants. That was the CSRT, as I had said above. But since the administration didn't want to do this, and conducted them quite properly behind closed doors when they did, it's hard to make a case that they're show trials.

Yes, there are secrets. This is a war after all. If you're going to talk about "true colors," doesn't it say something of the critics that they demand the release of classified evidence while the enemy is still fighting?

It's certainly true that there is no free choice of lawyers. Where does it say that there should be? It wasn't all that long ago that the critics were pretending to care about "competent tribunals." Now we rarely hear the term. Look it up: Competent tribunals do not require any lawyers at all, let alone choice. The CSRTs aren't that much different in that respect. For that matter, grand juries don't release their testimony either.

Yes, I do think Mark Denbeaux and his ilk are disingenuous agenda-driven lawyers (and I've read the deceitful Denbeaux study). But here's where I may disagree with TDC: I'm not completely opposed to putting those kinds of worms in here. I had also said, "If anyone wants to put CSRTs back in this article, it should clearly state what kind of people are calling it that." I often fret that society has allowed those who defended fascism during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact to have that part of history swept under the rug. I don't ever want the world to forget people like the Denbeauxs and where they stood in today's war against fascism.

-- Randy2063 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials section

I removed an isolated opinion. Nuremberg Trials were military tribunal, and calling it "show trial" is a trivial political slur. Every military tribunal may be labelled as such. `'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can state that objection in the para if you like. Military tribunal or not, they professed to represent universal norms of justice. According to Veale and others, they failed. But certainly feel free to state the other side of the case in a NPOV manner. St. Jimmy 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising that neo-nazis would describe the Nuremberg trials as show trials. They didn't like the results. All of those sentenced to death after the main Nuremberg trials were connected somehow to the Holocaust, something that neo-nazis either deny or find unobjectionable.

Das tut mir sehr leid. The trials relied heavily upon documentary evidence that the Nazi regime itself created. Self-serving statements of persons lower in the hierarchy but more intimately involved in Nazi war crimes was put to use. There were no confessions of the defendants, none of whom pleaded guilty. All claimed innocence. As an example, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, highest-surviving official of the system of concentration camps, claimed that his initials on orders that if followed (they were obeyed) could result only in death of inmates were forgeries. He never claimed that the orders themselves were forgeries!

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer elucidates why the Nazis were so vulnerable to legal process after the Second World War: the rapid collapse of the Third Reich prevented the Nazis from destroying the records of their crimes -- inventories of looted objects, personnel records, death lists, railroad schedules, manifests of inmates, orders, commendations, architectural plans, engineering data, accounting ledgers, medical records, and filmed documentation that monitored "progress" in exterminations, plunder, and repressions to the highest leadership. The Nazis kept excellent records, and those records were enough to convict them. They could conceal their worst crimes from the German people through sundry deeds of legerdemain, but they were unable to destroy the incontrovertible evidence.

The irregularities arise from the fact that the war criminals were convicted by foreigners, and that participants in the trial included the Soviet Union, a political entity whose judicial practice was typically unreliable in establishing guilt or innocent. That the Soviet Union concurred with the process by which the US, Great Britain, and France chose to participate absolves the participation of Soviet judges and prosecutors. No German legal process was then capable of trying anyone in so complicated a set of cases. As a strict rule, criminal defendants have no right in any judicial system to select judges or prosecutors, let alone decide whether they wish to be tried once under legal custody or for what.

The Nuremberg trials were about (1) conspiracy against the lawful German republic resulting in the imposition of a tyrannical and lawless regime, (2) military aggression, (3) violation of the laws of war, and (4) "crimes against humanity" -- that is, industrial-scale crimes of murder, kidnapping, torture, and theft. Convictions of people solely on their role in the rise of Adolf Hitler to power would have been travesties, as few involved had any idea of what he would be like. Nazi military aggression was not without precedent, as shown in the geographic expansion of the United States and Russia, not to mention the British and French colonial empires. Nazi aggression, including diplomatic efforts intended to give assurances to the contrary in knowledge that such assurances would be violated, were also unambiguously unwelcome in all places.

It is hardly to be expected that the systems of military justice in operation in the UK, the United States, and France, all of which prosecuted and punished soldiers who committed crimes while on duty, would fail to prosecute those captured soldiers and public officials culpable of such crimes. Unless one is to say that all military tribunals can perform only show trials, the Nuremberg trials and subsequent process cannot be seen as show trials. Much can be said of the Tokyo trials, some of which are shakier.

The nazi war criminals damned themselves. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No references

Aside from the simple "OED", which isn't very helpful anyway. Enigma ^message 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier remarks

Eugene Lyons and others complained about show trials in the early 1930's, the 1920's and 1919. This was some time before Stalin became influential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC) A trial of Left SR's might have taken place as early as 1919. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) See Shakhty Trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC) The SR trial in 1922 was before Stalin was very influential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) See the Industrial Party Trial of 1930. This was before Dewey but after Stalin's appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) The Menshevik trial in 1931 is another case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Geert Wilders?

How can the trial against Geert Wilders be considered a show trial, if the other example deals with the show trials in Moscow in the 1930s? There is no certain outcome here, and while the trial is high-profile, it is unlikely it will be presided in the same way Roland Freisler presided his show trials. Phoib (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Romania NPOV (1989 Ceauşescu trial/execution)

(material below has been copied here from Talk:Miscarriage of justice.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the newly added section on Romania as NPOV. It's well cited, but very biased and needs some balance.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have never claimed that the Ceausescus were innocent. All I have claimed that the trial was a mockery of justice, and this is widely agreed inside the Western press. Since justice is not only for the innocent, but also the guilty have to be treated justly, such trial was a kangaroo court which held in high contempt the rule of law and the state of law. In our countries justice is procedural, i.e. a judge has to respect the proper procedures in order to establish guilt. If these procedures were not followed, no Solomonic judgment could replace things as due process, right to be defended, fair trial, having evidence presented and weighed, etc. In the Ceausescu trial, there was simply no time allowing for producing the amount of evidence required by the trial, so the prosecutors only listed names of the crimes committed by the Ceausescus without producing anything that looks like a proof. This is why I think that there is no NPOV of application: we do not discuss their guilt, but the legality of the trial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interview with Dan Voinea, one of the prosecutors of that trial. He basically admits there was no rule of law in that trial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here Ion Iliescu (who signed the decree for organizing that trial) basically admits the same. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interview from the Sunday Times with one of the executioners, who admits it was a phony trial and has remorse about shooting them. He became a lawyer, so he sees the legality of the trial as a professional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The president of the court has committed suicide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(end of material copied here from Miscarriage of justice talk page.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Press reports about a theater play accurately rendering their trial: [1], [2] and [3] (all in German). One review comments that the play acts upon Romanians in a way of liberating them from the political guilt for killing their own president. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the trial was faulty, besides what has been already mentioned in the article: lack of a document of notifying the the court and not having registered such document, not having communicated such document to the suspects, not having done the penal pursuit and not having done the psychiatric examination of the suspects during the penal pursuit, not setting a date for the trial, suspects being unable to choose their lawyers, not declaring an appeal and not judging the appeal. I wished I have a reliable source for this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sunday Times article is now available at [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Seven a show trial?

How can it be a show trial when they were all not guilty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.34.45 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference between the Chicago Seven and other show trials, is that this one had a jury who were not aware that they were supposed to convict regardless of the evidence. Of course, if you have any doubts about the ability of a jury to convict, you can always have Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.255.237 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rosenbergs

Would the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg qualify? DavidSSabb (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. This entire article is a bit fuzzy about what a "show trial" is-- by my lights it doesn't just mean "a trial of politically unpopular people". It means something fundamentally rigged.

One notable component of "true show trials" is while legal "form" is followed, its hollow. The accused don't have independent lawyers, they're provided by the authorities, and their aim is not to assert a vigorous defense, but rather to keep the show rolling. This characterizes the Moscow Trials, for example, and trials in China.

But the Rosenbergs did have a vigorous defense, from Emmanuel Bloch, who said at the Rosenbergs' funerals: "I place the murder of the Rosenbergs at the door of President Eisenhower, Mr. Brownell and J. Edgar Hoover"" -- hardly a cooperative government lawyer, that.

Crocodilian (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Union, not Russia

The material in the section on Russia focuses exclusively on the Soviet Union, not Russia. Thus, the section title should be changed from Russia to Soviet Union. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian show trial

There should be a reference to the trial of the Bulgarian Congregationalist ministers in 1949 or a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have begun on 25/2/1949, in Sofia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkey section

The short sections contains many claims: That the Ergenekon trials were show trails (which insinuates that they haven't committed any crimes). That Erdogans government is a "regime". That the judiciary was acting on behalf of the Erdogan government ("Show trials have also been executed in Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's regime"). That members of the Gülen organization in the judicial system were behind these trials (an organization which is at odds with Erdogan, BTW). Overmore there is no source provided for these claims.--Severino (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There ARE examples for show trails in Turkey from earlier decades, BTW.--Severino (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I have reverted the edit by 206.212.8.57. Indeed, there are examples from the past, it would be great if someone added those, with appropriate sources.--Cfsenel (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Show Trials in the UK

Would the trial of Stephen Ward in the UK count as a show trial? There are certainly irregularities; the police where instructed to find out something about him for which he could be prosecuted; witnesses were coerced by the police; the judge and prosecuting counsel seem to proceeded as if Ward was being prosecuted for his "immoral" life style; and the Court of Appeal was engaged in murky dealings. The trial was a response to the "Profumo Scandal". Lord Denning later produced a Report which seemed to many to be a whitewash of the elite establishment.

Korhomme (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are asking this question, then probably not. This article is not a collection of all possible cangaroo courts in the world. We may include some extremely notorious examples as an illustration of the concept. (probably not some, but many, since I guess every country has its share of abuse, and in English wikipedia we are trying to present the whole world view.) So, again, if you are asking the question, then probably the case was not sufficiently notorious example of what is called "show trial". In any case, the answer will be not a wikipedian's opinion, but scholarly sources which describe this trial as a prominent case of a show trial. Please keep in mind that sensationalist newspaper header do not count. -M.Altenmann >t 07:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent removals from page

A fair amount of content was recently removed, including information about Nazi Germany and Romania, with edit summaries that "cahgaroo court is not the same as show trial" and that the Trial of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu was not a show trial. I believe both these removals are incorrect, as the People's Court), and indeed all Sondergerichte, were created by the government with the goal of silencing and punishing dissent, rather than the administration of justice. My understanding is that a show trial is a type of kangaroo court that is an officially sanctioned process and outwardly looks like a trial, while a kangaroo court does not necessarily have to be both of those things. In both cases, there is a negligible likelihood that a defendant will be found innocent.

I also like some comment on where the distinction should lie between show trial and kangaroo court, as there can be some overlap, and some objective standard of where the line should be drawn and what goes into which article.-Ich (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What is a show trial

I am seeing a lot of stuff about mass trials or general persecution. Are these show trials?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)