By: Bryan Stephens
Considering and contemplating E L. Doctorow’s, The Book of Daniel, undoubtedly causes the reader to reflect upon the trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The novel’s narrator, Daniel, describes his investigation and understanding of his own parents’ conviction and execution. As the plot develops, the reader becomes increasingly familiar with how his parents’ public condemnation has personally affected both Daniel and his sister, who dies from a nervous disorder after attempting suicide.
That society is so keen to impute a sort of constructive culpability for crimes of others onto innocent bystanders is both appalling and shocking – though, not altogether unexpected. It does, consequently, beg the question as to why society feels the need for this form of seemingly retributive justice In The Book of Daniel, the children unnecessarily suffer various levels of scrutiny that will later shape and impact their futures. Robert and Michael Meeropol (née Rosenberg) were also cast off and labeled Communist demons following the indictment, conviction and execution of their parents. Moreover, the contention that Ethel Rosenberg was a Russian spy was never substantiated. With due regard to Ethel, Michael and Robert, each suffered individually at the hand of society, our ultimate judge.
Collective thinking and action is a force that can be impossible to withstand. An aggrieved society, for various reasons, seems to be uninterested and even incapable of collectively accepting or even considering past circumstances and story when it begins its quest to make the wrongs of the world right. McCarthy era politics actually welcomed the opportunity for society to condemn an entire family for the wrongs of one man (both Rosenberg children now agree that their father was most likely a Russian spy). This sort of reaction has become an almost militaristic campaign to raze contrary public sentiment and action, with the force of the many (which is accepted as the prevailing good), wholly and totally silencing the few who stand in apparent opposition to normative values. Women, children, adoptive parents and friends, who have any kind of associated ties, no matter how irrational, are, thus, deemed anti-social and fall out of reach from conventional justice.
Evolving culturally accepted practices that shape our normative behaviors undoubtedly influence our view of legal ethics and the place of truly unbiased juris prudence. It is therefore appropriate to require that legal practitioners and policymakers temper the irrationality of collective influence, which leads to universally accepted condemnation. The co-mingling of law and culture has a certain relevance that is often unappreciated, misunderstood or sadly ignored. Should law reflect culture and principled modern social thought – and, vice-versa – it then begs the question: did we get it right?
