On June 19, 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were station to final stage by electrocution at Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, unused York. The Rosenbergs were move and convicted of federation to yield espionage (Fariello 178). The Rosenbergs were accuse of selling nu get secrets to the Soviet Union as a part of a striking recognize ring. The presiding ratified expert everywhere the exertion, tax Irving R. Kaufman, handed amaze through(a) the article of faith on April 5, 1951 (Wexley 597). in that location has been much contr all oersy touch the guilt or whiteness of Julius Rosenberg and his married woman, Ethel. As more documents meet been released concerning the Rosenberg role, Julius Rosenbergs guilt as a snoop has been established. Ethel Rosenberg was almost surely an partner in churn up to her hubbys abuses plain though the authoritiess case against her was weak (Radosh 448). The bad of the penalization, however, was likewise great for the crime committed by the Rosenbergs. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried and true, convicted, and convictd in an era when communism was worshiped, Russia was an enemy, and scapegoats were needed to reprove for foreign conflict. justice requires that the penalty fit the crime; however, at cartridge holders the penalisation fits the environment. At a prison term when anti-commie sentiments ran high, the Rosenbergs condemn of give the sack by electrocution was too good for the crimes that they committed. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accuse of confederacy to commit espionage. Prosecutors usu admirer use the federation charge when in that respect is a lack of evidence to canvas the actual bang of a crime (Wexley 277). Julius Rosenberg was ar be and charged with recruiting his companion-in-law, David Greenglass, into a give away ring and providing Soviet agents with atomic secrets. Greenglass was to steal atomic information from Los Alamos, the site where the atomic bomb was creation developed, so that it cou! ld be sold to Russian agents (Neville 16). Ethel Rosenberg was later on arrested on the equal charge as an accomplice to her husbands crimes. Although a jury stubborn the guilt of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the reckon decided their fate. try Irving R. Kaufman declared the shoemakers oddment sentence for the Rosenbergs on April 5, 1951 (Wexley 597). The automatic teller machine of the motor inn was hostile to contendds the Rosenbergs and their hardly chance for a fairish runnel was if the sample presumed their artlessness and conducted the outpouring appropriately. This was non the case. As the jury was selected, referee Kaufman dismissed either perspective jury cleaning woman who had a diagonal against the atomic bomb or its use, believed that atomic information should be released to Russia, were members of a left wing party, take in left-winger publications, or remote capital penalisation. The resulting jury was do of 11 men, one woman, and no Jewish pas sel (Phillipson 277). By early 1943, the Rosenbergs were ardent believers in Communism and full-fledged members of the communistic party (Radosh 53). By late 1943, they had stopped participating in the activities of the party (Radosh 54). Nevertheless, the Rosenbergs set about a jury of anti- communists who would non be sympathetic to their past communist affiliations. The judge also would non be sympathetic to the Rosenbergs communist past (Caute 140). The judges horizon of the Rosenbergs is clear in his apparent motioning of the witnesses during the visitation during which Ethel and Julius were forced to endure the one- ii combine of judge and prosecutor, workings in tandem (Phillipson 292). As Kaufman began his sentencing expression, his aline feelings about the Rosenbergs were splited. He told the Rosenbergs that he considered their crime as worse than murder because they dedicate into the hands of the Russians the plutonium bomb years beforehand American scie ntists predicted (Phillipson 306). His lecturing con! tinued by blaming the soviet antagonism in Korea that caused over 50,000 deceases on the actions of the Rosenbergs which altered the course of account to the mischief of the united States (Phillipson 306). This comment revealed that suppose Kaufman was non transaction with the crime at issue because no evidence had been presented connecting the Rosenbergs to Soviet exercise in Korea (Radosh 284). The judge continued in his public reproof with an accusation of treachery (Phillipson 306). The Rosenbergs were on trial for conspiracy, that the judge sentenced them with the image of treason in his mind. Judge Kaufman continued his speech with accusations that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg believed in Soviet atheism, collectivism, and actions against the freedom of man (Neville 49). None of these accusations were turn to during the trial or found in the trial introduce (Wexley 594). The judge make these accusations based on his own tactile sensation of the Rosenbergs as oppos ed to the facts that were brought forth during the trial. Judge Kaufman revealed in his sentencing speech his dis brotherly reception for the actions of the Rosenbergs. He exaggerated their transgressions with additional accusations that were not corroborate by trial testimony. The sentencing speech do by Judge Kaufman has been cited as an ideal model of the paranoid style of presidency in America during the Cold War (Neville 49). The paranoia felt by Judge Kaufman concerning the Soviet threat in 1951 contributed to his action of fall the sentencing urgeations of the prosecution in the Rosenberg case (Radosh 289). Judge Kaufman was known to outperform the recommendations of the prosecutors in atom spy cases. In cases that he had presided over previous to the Rosenberg case, he had set a precedent for handing calibrate sentences that were more severe than expected. In the Rosenberg case, the government activity did not recommend the finale penalty especially, for Ethel Rosenberg (Radosh 279). Judge Kaufman decided not to! determine sentencing recommendations in court after hearing that the FBI was in opt of a prison sentence for Ethel Rosenberg (Radosh 281). After the trial, Kaufman claimed that he did not take sentencing recommendations from whatsoeverone (Fariello 184). Prosecuting attorney Roy Cohn claimed that in communications he had with Kaufman during the case, he convinced the judge to give Ethel Rosenberg a death sentence (Fariello 184). Improper conferences such as those with Roy Cohn led Judge Kaufman to hire sentencing decisions based on his soulal preconceived opinion as opposed to the facts brought forth during the trial. Ethel Rosenberg was the first American woman to be electrocuted by federal order (Neville 133). When she was arrested, she was not sensitive of the severity of the crimes of which she was impeach. As far as she was aware, she faced a possible death penalty or life custody for conferring with her husband, brother, and baby-in-law on two separate occasions (P hillipson 274). It was not until later when she learned that her brother had accused her of deeper involvement in the spy ring. The judge accused her of being the she-devil and the mastermind behind the Rosenberg spy ring (Fariello 184). investigatory files of the Federal Bureau of Investigations contain no information to link Ethel Rosenberg to active participation in the spy ring beyond the conferences with David Greenglass and her husband (Radosh 451). Ethel Rosenberg was convicted for being aware of her husbands activities (Radosh 167). The punishment she pay off was too severe for the involvement she had in these activities. The mass of the prosecutions case rested on the testimony of David Greenglass, the brother of Ethel Rosenberg. David Greenglass was convicted as one of the plotters in the trial. He confessed to the crime and testified against his sister and brother-in-law. David Greenglass involve Julius Rosenberg of involvement in spy activities, but strongly denied any involvement of his sister until ten days before t! he trial.. (Fariello 179). s settle than two weeks previous to the start of the trial, Greenglass remembered that Ethel Rosenberg had typed some of the notes he made concerning the structure of the A-bomb (Fariello 184). This accusation led to the arrest of Ethel Rosenberg. Greenglasss wife, Ruth, claimed that her husband had a intent to furor and would say things were so even if they were not (Fariello 178). This brings into question the validity of the testimony of David Greenglass. Greenglasss testimony was appoint for the prosecution in order to support the claims of the conspiracy with which the Rosenbergs were being charged. David Greenglass was convicted of the same crime as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, but was sentenced to only cardinal years in a federal prison (Phillipson 285). His wife admitted to having an active purpose in the conspiracy, but was never arrested as a conspirator (Radosh 100). David Greenglasss sentence was extremely mild compared to the punishment g iven to the Rosenbergs. If Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had cooperated with the government and confessed like David Greenglass, they probably would welcome received a lightness sentence. The death sentence, however, appeared to the prosecution as the only means to feature a confession and force the Rosenbergs to reveal other people gnarled in spy activities (Phillipson 266). The severe punishment of the Rosenbergs was used to frighten other people who exponent be involved in spy activities so as to deter them from these activities (Radosh 451).
The judge used the Rosenbergs as an example to prove that the United St ates government would not tolerate any activity that m! ight communicate to danger for the country. The sentence of the Rosenbergs was partially an elbow grease to shock succeeding(a) traitors and deter future imitators (Wexley280). The Rosenbergs died maintaining their innocence and refusing to turn over any other associates with whom they might have worked (Radosh 417). The hope that a level sentence could induce a confession from the Rosenbergs failed and they were put to death even though the government recommended a hoy sentence (Radosh 289). The Rosenbergs were scapegoats in a time when anti-Communist sentiments were high. During the period of their trial and sentencing, the American climate was one of upkeep and solicitude toward anything associated with Communism. The United States government and the majority of citizens were determined to destroy anything or person with Communist affiliations (Phillipson 225). The Rosenbergs were accused of helping a country that was an ally at the time. They were tried after the ally na tion became an American enemy. If the Rosenbergs had been tried in 1945, it is probable that there would not have been the hysteria that existed in 1951. Most likely, they would have been sentenced to a light dispose term if any at all if they had been sentenced in 1945 (Radosh 282). During the sentencing of the Rosenbergs, the passing charged political atmosphere of the United States made it the trump moment to find a scapegoat for Communist activities afield (Wexley 397). The Rosenbergs were given such an extreme punishment because they could be the scapegoats of a propaganda war between the Communists and the anti-Communists (Radosh 452). On the day of the Rosenbergs sentencing, the charge of the American people was evident. The headlines of the cutting York Times read A tercet World War May Be Near, military man for europium Backed by Senate, nominate Asked to Act, and others that reflected the panic of the American people. The time was perfect for Judge Irving Kaufman to declare his sentence and receive approval from th! e American people. On April 5, 1951, Judge Kaufman was able to depict the apprehensive citizens of the United States with a scapegoat on which they could blame the war in Korea. The Rosenbergs became this scapegoat (Wexley 597). Newspapers had made the Rosenbergs traitors to their country and defendants in a trial of treason. The public was told in the newspapers that the Rosenbergs were sentenced to die as a result of a treason trial (Wexley 280). They pass judgment the punishment because they were not aware of the true crime that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of committing, conspiracy to commit espionage. No American citizen had ever been put to death because of an espionage conviction (Fariello 178). Their death was caused by extreme apprehension in the United States concerning anything linked to Communism (Phillipson 225). Their death was caused by the bias of a judge who presumed guilt instead of innocence (Phillipson 277). Their death was caused by a prosecutions case that could prove conspiracy but not treachery (Wexley 277). The Rosenberg story captured the attention of America. It brought fear into the patrol wagon of those who feared nuclear attack and that citizens of the United States would be the country by selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The case also brought fear into the hearts of those that saw the injustice of the sentence that was handed down to the Rosenbergs. The Rosenbergs were not innocent victims of an unfair legal system, but they were victims of the time during which they were tried. Bibliography Caute, David. The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge on a lower floor Truman and Death House Letters of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. New York: Jero Publishing Company, Inc., 1953. Fariello, Griffin. blood-red Scare: Memories of the American Inquisition: An Oral History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995 Gardner, Virginia. The Rosenberg Story. New York: Masses & Mainstream, 1954. Neville, lav F. The Press, the Rosenbergs, and the Cold War. Westpor! t: Praeger Publishers, 1995. Philipson, Ilene. Ethel Rosenberg: Beyond the Myths. New York: Franklin Watts, 1988. Radosh, Ronald and Joyce Milton. The Rosenberg level: A chase for the Truth. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983. Wexley, John. The Judgment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. New York: Cameron & Kahn, 1955. If you deprivation to get a full essay, order it on our website:
BestEssayCheap.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
cheap essay
