Talk:Show trial

Japan

The section for Japan talks about it's conviction rates and gives two examples of previous rulings, but nowhere does it mention how all of that is related to the article's main topic. Is it implying that high conviction rates are a result of every trial being of a predetermined outcome? I mean, it should be clearly mentioned what is that entails the high conviction rates. Is it the judges/judicial system's preconceptions or the forced confessions obtained by the police? If so, how does that make every trial a show trial?

Furthermore, the last paragraphs are taken directly from Criminal justice system of Japan, which makes it all the more obvious that there hasn't been a lot of work done to the section to justify their relevance to the main topic of the article. I'm torn between rewriting the whole thing or deleting it entirely, but I think there's potential for improvement, so it'd be greatly appreciated if any editor with more knowledge on the topic could make it clear about how show trials are somehow linked to the Japanese judicial system. I'll take another look in the future if I have time, but I think more examples of concrete trials would be necessary to keep the section relevant. NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 22:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the section entirely per WP:NOR, as it seemed that a complete rewrite was necessary to make the section relevant to the topic of this article. The term "show trial" is mainly used in the context of political persecution, which is irrelevant to Japan's corrupt judicial system. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann Trial

The article for the Adolf Eichmann trial states that the event was televised internationally and that this was for propaganda value. If a reliable source states that the Adolf Eichmann's guilt was presumed beforehand, shall we include his trial as an example of a show trial in the article's See Also? 72.24.227.225 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Show trial vs. Kangaroo court

Some of the examples (and unfortunately reporters) confuse the terms "Show trial" vs. "kangaroo court". Both of them are in disregard of law an justice. However the principal difference is that show trials are trials widely publicized by the state with the purpose of influencing public opinion. Therefore in adding examples here it is insufficient to give a reference that some reporter or a pundit called it "show trial" but to make sure that it indeed matches the definition given in wikipedia, because many use buzzword cliches without much thinking. Therefore I deleted Russian and middle East sections. If you disagree, Please argue here. - Altenmann >talk 06:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This information was removed with the following edit summary: "no evideence that censorsip law convictions are called "show trials"".

@Altenmann: Reliable sources have described some public trials in Russia and the Middle East as "show trials". I am sure that the trials of Vladimir Kara-Murza and other critics of the Russian government were intended, among other things, to scare other potential critics and portray the accused as "traitors" and "fifth column", so it definitely influenced public opinion and behavior.

On 4 March 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill introducing prison sentences of up to 15 years for those who publish "knowingly false information" about the Russian armed forces and their operations. What is considered "false information" is decided by the Russian government. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 people were prosecuted under "fake news" laws in connection with the war in Ukraine. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, Mariana Katzarova, stated that "Show trials of prominent figures, such as Orlov, are aimed at instilling fear, deterring the public from participating in peaceful protests and preventing people from voicing dissent."

On 17 April 2023, Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza was convicted on charges of treason and "spreading disinformation" about the Russian military, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Kara-Murza's conviction is the longest sentence for political activity since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the length of the sentence is comparable only to Stalin's purges in the 1930s. Kara-Murza compared his case to show trials from the Stalin era.

Judiciary in countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia is completely dependent on the wishes and wants of the governing regimes. During their show trials, Human rights activists and opposition figures are routinely given harsh verdicts in predetermined rulings by the kangaroo courts.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• As I explained already, journalists and other pundits tend to use strong words as attention-grabbers. We are encyclopedia and must write in articles according to the definition of the subject. For example, the quotation above says "Kara-Murza compared his case to show trials" -- "compared" is not the same as "is". - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Current trials in Russia for allegedly "discrediting" the Russian armed forces or committing "treason" fit the definition of "show trials" quite well. The main difference between Vladimir Kara-Murza and Milada Horáková is that there is no death penalty in Russia yet, only extrajudicial killings by the state, but it is probably more advantageous for the regime to organize "show trials" with liberal, nonviolent opponents of the regime and present them before by the public as "traitors" and the "fifth column", instead of killing them in "accidents" like they killed Prigozhin. We both have a different opinion on the matter, but mine is supported by many reliable sources. I have not yet seen a reliable source saying that the trials of regime opponents in Russia, or in other non-democratic countries like Egypt, are not show trials. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It is insufficient to fit one condition of a definition. The key word in the phrase is "show", i.e., being widely publicized by the showmakers, i.e., by the government. In your case the trials are widely publicized by the opposition. As for our disagreement, we disagree with the meaning of "reliable sources" for the meaning of a term. If you provide sources that these trials were widely publicized by the government, then we agree. Second, you yourself wrote allegedly "discrediting" - which is a perfect match for the case of "kangaroo court": trupmed up accusations. - Altenmann >talk 17:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)