Post #9 Innocent Until Proven Guilty

   In the US, the court system has operated on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Based on the evindence, a person is convicted of a crime or acquitted. Similarly, a jury's verdict is (and was) influenced by a jury's belief about a defendant's character. A person's gender, race, or particular social class might be or his only crime. With that in mind, in the 19th century, a jury in State V. Rehberg (1885) would have found Edward Rehberg guilty on one account of child abuse, and one count of being a poor white farmer; in the 20th century, a jury would likely find Rehberg "not guilty" of all charges.

 The case of State V. Rehberg occured in 1885; a case in which Edward Rehberg was on trial for charges of child abuse which led to second degree murder. He allegedly beat his eleven year old daughter, Clara Rehberg, to the point that it killed her. The evidence of this case is simple, Mr. Rehberg was seen all day by his daughter working on the haystack, with the hired help Joe Tiebow. This provided Mr. Rehberg with an alibi. A dying declaration provided by the daughter in question, Clara; stated that her father did not beat her, but in was her step-mother, Louisa Rehberg.
   With all the facts found in this case it might be hard for a person to render a verdict of guilty, we in the 19th century however, feel that is exactlyl how this case was decided. In the historical context, Mr. Rehberg being looked at in a social way would have been seen as guilty because he was a member of lower class. Although this is not directly stated, it is evident through various witnesses. For every piece of evidence that proved him innocent, Mr. Rehberg's status and the things he did to survive made him guilty. First, his alibi; Mr. Rehberg was a white male farmer who was seen working at the haystack all say long. This backfired against himi because he made his daughters work int eh fields as well as the haystacks; while wearing "overhauls". In the 19th century, this was seen as abuse becuase the role of a female woman or child was not in the fields, but in the house doing "lady like" things. Also, since it was his own female children who said they saw him, the jury would assume that they were trying to protech their father. Second, the dying declaration of Clara; stating that Louisa beat her, which also backfired on Mr. Rehberg, because the jury would never believe it. Clara saying that Louisa did the beating had to be a lie, becuase a woman in the 19th century was seen as the nurturer, the caretaker and very passive. A woman could not have possibly beaten a child to death; they were seen as the protector of the children from their aggresive, disciplining fathers. Also, women at atht time were said to have more moral judgement than men, they could not have been so cruel. In addition, women were supoposedly not as strong as men; therefore Louisa did not have the strength to beat a child to such as degree of death.  Clara was a child of a low social class, who may have, like her siblings wanted to help her father and because of this the jury may have suggested that she was fabricating the truth.
   Clara  would not have been seen as competent enough to understand the seriousness and effects of what she was saying. After being questioned about the beating and continously reminded that she was about to die, Clara began to swear. In such a God fearing period like the 19th Century, this was not what a dying person would do if they knew any better, especially a child. Clara is from the lower class, which supposedly did not follow the same Godly beliefs, nor did they teach their children Godly beliefs. Clara, although eleven years old, could not possibly know right from wrong, therefore she was lying; Louisa did not beat her, Edward Rehberg did. He was the last person with Clara; he is the man of the house, and he is GUILTY!
   In the 20th Century, Mr. Rehberg, without a doubt would be innocent; this is clear by looking at the evidence. First, his alibi; it does not depend on who saw him; a child, man or women, his alibi would be admissible without quesion. If he was not at the place where the crime was committed then he could not possibly have committed the crime.  Everyone who testified said to have seen him at the haystack and no where in contact with Clara until she came to already in pain. Dr. Steele testified taht Clara's injuries could  have been inflicted before noon, but if Clara kept moving then she would have not felt any pain until she lay down or rested. Her sister, Emma, said Clara woke up that morning feeling well and went on to perform he daily tasks as usual. It was late in the day when Clara was seen "sleeping on the lounge"; upon waking she went to her father to take her to the doctor. Due to Mr. Rehberg's alibi, he could not have possibly beaten his daughter to this point, in the time frame stated. Second, the dying declaration; Clara is eleven years old, and unless mentally disabled she would have been able to know the difference between right and wrong. Since Clara said that Louisa beat her, and evidence shows that the witnesses saw Louisa with Clara all day, the blame would be put upon Louisa. Theories that a women is too nice, passive, or gentle to have committed the crime would not hold water in court, or in the minds of a jury. By the 20th Century, these ideals about women were proven wrong. Another difference concerning the declaration and Louisa in the 20th Century would be irrelevant unless words between the two were exchanged concerning the abuse. A lawyer would want to put Louisa on the stand to either prove a violent tendency in Mr. Rehberg; or after reading the declaration, question her about her involvement in the crime or her whereabouts. This brings the third reason why Mr. Rehberg would not have been convicted; Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the basis of verdicts in the 20th Century; a person could not have been convicted unless they are "guilty without reasonable doubt." With the children and Joe Tiebow testifying that Clara was with Louisa all day, it is hard to prove that without reasonable doubt, that Edward Rehberg is guilty.

   This case puts shame on the US court system of the 19th Century because although Mr. Rehberg would be found guilty, our decision can only be justified after looking at the beliefs of the society. Fortunetly, as society becomes less constrained by the beliefs of "a perfect America", more legal cases are ruled without bias to a particular class or gender. The court systems today have a proper way to punish criminals and let the innocent go free; today cases are decided on, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."   

Comments

[gdiaz]

I would like to start by stating that your group’s thesis was very effective and is what made your post so good. It made the post go thoroughly as planned, where you went from talking about how a trial would be conducted in the 19th century to how it is conducted in the 20th century without many problems. I would only have to critic on the format of the post, because some paragraphs were not separated by a space making it somewhat tedious to read. There were also a few grammar mistakes that could have been easily corrected with a peer review such as, “haystack all say long. This backfired against himi because he made his daughters work int eh fields.” There was also no pictures or reference to the book, which could have also made this post much stronger. One last thing to note is that I didn’t see a group report either, which is necessary. Overall though, I think you guys did a great job and I’m sure your next posts will be just as good.