[Previous entry: "What the Dickens ..."] [Main Index] [Next entry: "As others hear us"]
10/07/2005: "What the Dickens (continued)"
OGL might be a little rusty on his 19th century literature, but certain aspects of Dickensian Britain seem to have left a more lasting impression. As Lea Smalls explains:
Dickens' representation of the trial system [in 'Oliver Twist'] was an accurate representation. For instance, when Oliver is taken into custody he is never allowed to speak. When standing trial he is sick, and the judge dismisses his silence as an act of noncompliance. This is probably the most realistic aspect of the Dickens' novel. At the time the novel portrays the trial courts consisted of the magistrate, the police, and the prosecutor. Most noticeably missing is the defense lawyer. In fact Dickens makes a good point when he writes, "The offense had been committed within the district, and indeed in the immediate neighborhood of, a very notorious metropolitan police office". Once arrested by the metropolitan police one was believed to be guilty. There was no concept of due process of the law.Am I the only one that feels just a pang of deja vu when reading this?
There's another aspect of Blair's speech that I thought pretty informative re his state of mind. In choosing to differentiate between 'the innocent' and 'law-abiding people' (see previous post) he seems to be hinting at something rather sinister; a notion, perhaps, that those accused of crimes are not really part of 'law-abiding society', even if they are not actually guilty. This would certainly go a long way towards explaining his indecent willingness to tear up the rule book on habeas corpus and use it as toilet paper.
