The theme of justice, or perverted justice, was prevalent in both Witness and Rio Bravo. In both cases, justice was bastardized because the person who was meant to deploy it was more focused on proving himself right. Both the Sheriff in Rio Bravo and the prosecutors conducting the cross examinations of Alger Hiss during his trial were so sure of their position, that they circumvented the processes the true justice demands.
At minute 42 of the film Rio Bravo, the Sheriff rushes into a saloon in hot pursuit of an alleged criminal. After checking all the men’s boots for wet mud and finding them all to be spotless, it seems as though the Sheriff has erred in thinking that the man whom he sought had run into the bar. Just as it seems that he and his sidekick are about to leave, one turns, points his barrel into the uppermost corner of the saloon and fires. From that corner falls the man whom they had been pursuing, dead. In this moment, law enforcement acts as judge, jury and executioner. This is a clear subversion of the deeply American principle that one is guilty until proven innocent. The Sheriff was so sure that this man was guilty of something, that he took justice into his own hands. Although this act is meant to be seen as a heroic and awesome showing of skill, it also begs the question, should justice, any justice, look like this?
A similar question comes to mind while reading the exchange between Alger Hiss and the prosecutors of his case. Many of these lines of questioning can be rightly characterized as the laying of intentional linguistic traps. By varying, ever so slightly, the syntax and diction of each question, prosecutors hoped to catch and exploit even the most subtle of inconsistencies in both Hiss’s and Chamber’s accounts. On page 561, Mr. Stripling reintroduces the question to Hiss, “When did you first move into the P Street house?” Hiss responds by saying,” Mr. Stripling, I really thing the best way for this committee to get full facts it to go to records, if possible. I have said that several times in these hearings” (561). This legal tactic––asking a particular question to elicit a particular piece of information, and then rephrasing the question––is often used to confuse or fatigue witnesses into destroying their own credibility. This, too, relates to the way justice is dolled out and performed in both of these pieces. Although the pursuit may be an honorable one, honorable ends do not justify dishonorable means. Neither Hiss nor Chambers were treated by the Committee as Americans who were innocent until proven otherwise. Rather, the Committee was so sure they had apprehended a pair of Communists, that they pushed aside principle for the sake of furthering its own political agenda.
In both of these examples, assumptions and pride were put ahead of principled, ordered justice.