Lizzie Borden was not guilty from a legal perspective

Baosheng Guo

The well-known philosopher Kant Immanuel asserts: "humans cannot know the Thing in itself". That is to say, " we know not this thing as it is in itself, only know its appearances, the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something"("Thing-in-itself"). Because of the limitations of human cognitive abilities, in Lizzie Borden’s case, we maybe would never know the truth itself. However, through the whole human legal process and all cognitive means, we can reach the relative truth, and that truth is the truth we have to accept. In A Theory of Justice, philosopher John Rawls asserted: “Pure procedural justice describes situations in which there is no criterion for what constitutes a just outcome other than the procedure itself” (Rawls). In fact, the Lizzie case not only exhausted the means of human cognition, but also totally meets the demands of procedural justice, and indeed, she was not guilty from a legal perspective.

First of all, although the prosecutors exhausted their means and strength, this case obviously lacked direct evidence to prove Lizzie Borden's guilt. Direct evidence is the evidence of persons who saw, heard, or enrolled in person. For instance, in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln’s wife and a young army officer named Henry Rathbone took a seat in the same box and saw the murderer John Wilkes Booth and all processes of murder. Thus, the testimony of Lincoln’s wife and Henry Rathbone is direct evidence to accuse the murderer (History.com Editors). In terms of procedural justice, only direct evidence can prove the truth. However, there was no direct evidence in Lizzie Borden's case, nobody saw the process of Lizzie killing two victims, and no direct connection like fingerprint and the blood between the weapon axe and Lizzie. All evidence, in this case, is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Such as someone saw Lizzie burn a dress, and someone reported hearing Lizzie’s muffled laugh coming from upstairs ("Lizzie Borden"). Also, there were more conjectures and reasoning besides circumstantial evidence. In short, the policemen could not detect and find direct evidence, and all legal processes could not effectively accuse Lizzie, so we have to accept the truth from a legal perspective: Lizzie's guilty could not approve, so she was innocent.

Also, Lizzie Borden lacked the motivation to kill her parents. The person’s motivation is spirit existence and could not be seen or heard, it is only demonstrated by her or his action. Before the murder, no actions could be illustrating that Lizzie has the motivation to kill her father and stepmother. Some theorize that Lizzie wanted to get an inheritance and was worried her father transferred the property to her stepmother's sister, so she killed her parents. Actually, the family have no conflict about inheritance recently, her father has no sign to make the decision about inheritance ("Lizzie Borden"). If Lizzie wants to get the inheritance, she could only kill her stepmother enough, why did she kill her father? Therefore, this presumption is a fallacy. In addition, someone said Lizzie doesn’t like her stepmother constantly and they take food separately, and she hates her father because her father killed her pigeon recently. This is the motivation for murder. In fact, “dislike” and “hate” are negative moods, but they could not lead to a young lady striking an ax a dozen times respectively and killing them. As a result, it’s impossible for Lizzie Borden to kill her parents.

Finally, the prosecution has not been procedural justice and could not prove Lizzie guilty. As we all know, the judge, in this case, ruled out two important testimonies of prosecution. One is the druggist’s testimony, the judge declared it was inadmissible, purchase of poison could not prove that she will the murder. Another is Lizzie’s inquest testimony by prosecutors, and this is the most critical legal basis. The judge thought Lizzie had not received adequate legal counsel at the inquest time, so he eliminated the legitimacy of the inquest and testimony (Carlisle, Marcia). Obviously, the judge is correct because the prosecution violated procedural justice, and Lizzie didn't receive sufficient protection from legal rights that were conferred by the U.S. Constitution the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments ("The Constitution"). The judge has excluded the procedural injustice and realized the procedural justice. Without Lizzie's testimony, it was clear that she was not guilty.

Someone said the conclusion that Lizzie was not guilty has been influenced by public opinion. Indeed, many protests and demonstrations from feminist and civil right organization asked the court fairly to deal with this case because Lizzie is female and a Christian. The voice became louder during the trial than the pretrial. However, as a fair trial, it should be ignored by any public opinion and should only discuss things in terms of their scope and nature. The jury could not make a judgment according to her sex and assert she is not guilty because she is female. The jury should make a judgment only depending on the truth from a legal perspective.

The honorable jury, thank you for implementing the rights of U.S. citizens. As a jury, it is significant to decide only according to the law and valid evidence. Although human knowledge is limited, depending on the legal process and procedural justice that has been built upon long-time experience by our elder generation, we can get to the truth and justice would be done. I believe you, the honorable jury.

Works Cited

Carlisle, Marcia. “What Made Lizzie Borden Kill?” AMERICAN HERITAGE, 1 Jan. 2021, www.americanheritage.com/what-made-lizzie-borden-kill.

History.com Editors. "Abraham Lincoln’s Assassination." HISTORY, 27 Oct. 2009, http://www.history.com/....../abraham-lincoln-assassination.

"Lizzie Borden." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 5 Jan. 2021. Web. 6 Jan. 2021.

"The Constitution." The White House, 20 Jan. 2021, http://www.whitehouse.gov/....../our....../the-constitution/.

"Thing-in-itself." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 9 Feb. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself. Accessed 13 Feb. 2023.

Rawls, A Theory of Justice, revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999 Chapter II, Section 14