OPINION: Trump’s Deportation Proceedings Mirror ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Trial
Going down the rabbit hole
As a longtime children’s literature professor, I often see connections between the children’s books that I teach in my courses and current events. This semester, I noticed a striking connection between Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and the political/legal debate related to several recent deportation cases.
The final two chapters in Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland focus on an absurd trial. On one level, this trial marks the culmination of Alice’s dream-like experience in Wonderland. On another level, however, it reflects the process of actual deportation proceedings under President Donald Trump.
Though it is entirely fictional, the trial brings into focus our current debate about the presentation of evidence in judicial proceedings and the importance of due process.
During the trial, the Knave of Hearts is accused of stealing tarts. The key evidence that is presented in support of this accusation is a nonsensical poem that is read aloud by the White Rabbit. There is nothing in the poem that relates to the alleged crime, nor is it possible to understand what the poem means.
“I don’t believe that there is an atom of meaning in it,” as Alice says.
The King of Hearts, who is also playing the role of the judge, makes a foolish attempt to tie a few lines from the poem to the charges facing the Knave. In the end, however, no evidence is presented that proves that the Knave stole the tarts.
Still, the King moves forward to the next stage of the trial, calling out, “Let the jury consider their verdict.”
What happens next is one of the most famous moments in the book. The Queen of Hearts, a pompous bully who usually divides her time between playing croquet and calling for beheadings, decides to intervene in the proceedings.
She loudly proclaims, “No, no! Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”
Alice knows that the Queen’s proclamation makes no sense, for the verdict is the determination of innocence or guilt. The sentencing stage only takes place if the accused is found guilty. Alice therefore responds to the Queen by saying, “Stuff and nonsense! The idea of having the sentence first!”
At this point in the story, Alice is insisting that Wonderland conform to the rules of logic rather than the illogical nature of dreams, so it is fitting that she wakes up at exactly this moment. She finds herself back in the meadow where she and her sister were sitting on the bank in the beginning of the story before Alice drifted off to sleep.
Though Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is a British children’s book written in the 1860s, his depiction of the absurd trial at the end of the story bears a direct relation to the deportation cases currently taking place in the United States.
The passages that deal with the presentation of the nonsensical evidence at the trial underscores for us that evidence should be directly tied to the crime that the defendant is accused of having committed.
For example, basing a conviction on an interpretation of a tattoo is not much different from trying to convict the Knave based on a line from a nonsensical poem.
The Queen of Heart’s proclamation about having the sentence first and the verdict afterward flies in the face of due process. Sentencing someone to prison when that person has not been found guilty of committing a crime might please the Queen of Hearts and others of her ilk, but it deprives the defendant of the due process associated with a fair trial.
If 7-year-old Alice can understand that a sentence should not come before a verdict, then we, as modern-day grownups, should be capable of following that reasoning and call the absurdist nonsense in front of us what it is.
Read more: How Champagne Selman Brought Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library to Charlotte (2021)
Mark I. West is professor of English at UNC Charlotte where he regularly teaches courses on children’s and young adult literature. The views expressed in this piece are his alone.
