In the Freedom of the City, Friel shows that justice is impossible to achieve because of political prejudice. This prejudice is obvious in each of the Judge speeches as his comments show that he has already made a decision in reference to the events of the Guildhall. This bias is also shown throughout the play, as he guides the witnesses statements so that they coincide with his own personal beliefs of what exactly happened in London Derry in 1970.
In his first speech, the author Brian Friel introduces the character of the Judge as a man who has already made a decision in reference to the events of the Guildhall after an illegal protest march for civil rights was organised by Irish Catholics in the city of London Derry. This bias is introduced early in his speech before he is issued with any facts or evidence; an example of this is when he refers to the three who entered the Guildhall as callous terrorists.
This contrasting his statement that the inquest was a fact finding exercise. In his first speech, the Judge offers two conclusions in reference to the events of that day, the first, that the three planned to enter the Guildhall during the protest march. The second that it was a misguided, unplanned scheme, but it seems that both of these conclusions suggest the three who entered the Guildhall were guilty.
The Judge does not hide his bias in the reader, second encounter with him as he makes the brigadier aware that he was an army man. Although this does not have an effect on the brigadiers statement it makes the reader aware of the beliefs that he holds. He then guides the statements made by those witnesses so that they coincide with his beliefs concerning the...