The trial of Justine Moritz in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a harrowing and pivotal moment, exposing the devastating consequences of prejudice, societal fear, and the manipulative power of a vengeful creation. Accused of murdering William Frankenstein, a crime she did not commit, Justine becomes a scapegoat, her guilt presumed rather than proven. This essay argues that Justine’s trial is not merely a tragic event within the narrative, but a profound miscarriage of justice, orchestrated by the creature’s insidious influence and facilitated by a society predisposed to condemn the vulnerable and the socially marginalized. The narrative effectively critiques the flaws in the justice system when faced with prejudice and an unseen, malevolent force.
Justine's immediate predicament is dire. Found with the murdered boy’s locket in her possession, the circumstantial evidence against her is damning. However, the text strongly suggests her innocence, painting her as a devoted servant and a pious young woman deeply distressed by the accusations. Elizabeth Lavenza, a character who genuinely cares for Justine, immediately doubts her guilt, stating, "I, who knew her well, never believed it possible that she could be guilty of the crime." This personal testimony from someone intimately familiar with Justine’s character stands in stark contrast to the jury’s swift condemnation. The speed and certainty with which Justine is convicted highlight a systemic failure; rather than a rigorous pursuit of truth, the trial appears to be a quick resolution driven by the need to assign blame and appease public outrage. The presumption of guilt, particularly for a woman in Justine’s social position, is palpable.
The true architect of William’s demise, and thus Justine’s downfall, is Victor Frankenstein’s creation. The creature, driven by a potent mix of loneliness, rage, and a desire for revenge against his creator, admits to Victor that he committed the murder. He describes framing Justine with chilling detail: "I fixed on the innocence of the maid her enormity." His malice is not just in the act of murder, but in the calculated cruelty of his deception, choosing to destroy an innocent life to inflict maximum pain upon Victor. This confession, revealed only to Victor, underscores the horrifying reality that the legal proceedings against Justine were entirely divorced from the actual perpetrator and the true circumstances of the crime. The creature’s ability to manipulate events and evidence, such as planting the locket, demonstrates a cunning intellect weaponized by his suffering, turning the machinery of justice against an unsuspecting victim.
Furthermore, societal prejudice plays a crucial role in Justine's unjust condemnation. As a dependent and a woman, Justine occupies a vulnerable position within the social hierarchy of Geneva. Her lack of powerful connections or resources makes her an easy target. The prevailing fear and hysteria surrounding William’s death likely contributed to the jury's eagerness to find a culprit. Victor’s own inaction, his paralysis stemming from guilt and fear of revealing his own monstrous creation, exacerbates the injustice. He stands by, knowing the truth but unable to speak it, effectively allowing an innocent woman to be sacrificed. His internal torment, fueled by his secret, paralyzes his ability to intervene, highlighting the devastating personal cost of his scientific hubris and the moral compromises it forces upon him. The trial, therefore, is not just about Justine’s guilt or innocence, but also a reflection of the societal biases that allowed her to be so easily condemned.
In conclusion, the trial of Justine Moritz in Frankenstein serves as a potent critique of a justice system susceptible to external manipulation and internal prejudice. The creature’s deliberate framing, coupled with Justine’s marginalized status and Victor’s crippling inaction, transforms the courtroom into a stage for a profound injustice. Shelley uses this tragic episode to expose the fragility of truth when confronted by fear, social inequality, and the devastating consequences of scientific ambition unchecked by ethical responsibility. Justine’s fate is a stark reminder of the human cost when the pursuit of justice is compromised by flawed processes and prejudiced assumptions.