In this series, two experienced barristers tackle old criminal trials. Both barristers interact with various distant relatives of the defendant, many of whom believe that their relative should have been given a fairer trial or a more lenient sentence. The key question is : would the verdict still stand nowadays, or would it be declared unsafe ?
I like the series, alhough for me each episode might be a quarter of an hour longer, paying greater attention to the legal aspects of the matter. At this point I need to warn you that I've got an unusually high tolerance for legal arguments, procedural discussions, courtroom scenes and so on, meaning that there won't be too many viewers around who share this criticism...
The concept behind the series is pretty interesting, although it sometimes seems to stray into an ill-advised attempt to blame people from 1880 or 1920 for not having exactly the same institutions, laws and attitudes as people living in 2018. One can easily imagine such attempts turning into involuntary comedy or self-parody. ("What about the Human Rights record of queen Elizabeth I ?" "Was queen Victoria an environmental criminal ?" "Was it right for the Spaniards to chase away the Moors ?" "Did Newton deserve a knee in the groin ?" "Why wasn't Glasgow built in another area ?" "Were Roman emergency services sufficiently equipped to deal with the Pompeii disaster ?")
Still, it needs to be said that many of the files provide interesting material for discussions about the death penalty. Moreover, many of the files still breathe an enduring horror or sadness. One of the cases, for instance, concerns an inoffensive couple of lovers walking home on a path next to a canal. The pair suddenly meet an older man with an air of authority who berates them (wrongfully) for trespassing. The confrontation grows ugly, and the young man receives a vicious blow which knocks him unconscious. Bemused witnesses see how the screaming girl is grabbed by the older man, who drags her away to a hiding place under a bridge. Hours later the corpse of the young girl is found floating in the canal. Now this is the stuff of nightmares...
I like the series, alhough for me each episode might be a quarter of an hour longer, paying greater attention to the legal aspects of the matter. At this point I need to warn you that I've got an unusually high tolerance for legal arguments, procedural discussions, courtroom scenes and so on, meaning that there won't be too many viewers around who share this criticism...
The concept behind the series is pretty interesting, although it sometimes seems to stray into an ill-advised attempt to blame people from 1880 or 1920 for not having exactly the same institutions, laws and attitudes as people living in 2018. One can easily imagine such attempts turning into involuntary comedy or self-parody. ("What about the Human Rights record of queen Elizabeth I ?" "Was queen Victoria an environmental criminal ?" "Was it right for the Spaniards to chase away the Moors ?" "Did Newton deserve a knee in the groin ?" "Why wasn't Glasgow built in another area ?" "Were Roman emergency services sufficiently equipped to deal with the Pompeii disaster ?")
Still, it needs to be said that many of the files provide interesting material for discussions about the death penalty. Moreover, many of the files still breathe an enduring horror or sadness. One of the cases, for instance, concerns an inoffensive couple of lovers walking home on a path next to a canal. The pair suddenly meet an older man with an air of authority who berates them (wrongfully) for trespassing. The confrontation grows ugly, and the young man receives a vicious blow which knocks him unconscious. Bemused witnesses see how the screaming girl is grabbed by the older man, who drags her away to a hiding place under a bridge. Hours later the corpse of the young girl is found floating in the canal. Now this is the stuff of nightmares...