Oscar Wilde and his false imprisonment
During the nineteenth century, homosexuality was considered a social taboo and severe criminal offense. Wilde was a victim of the societal views on homosexuality, which saw him being held responsible as a suspect in relation to sexual orientation. Wilde’s case was decided based on the 1885 Act of Criminal Law Amendment, which prohibited intimacy among men as such interactions were labeled gross indecencies.
In the 1890 era, Wilde was experiencing a literary peak and had established a robust academic bond (Raby 1). Further on, Wilde also had intimate relations with Lord Alfred Douglas, where Douglas was Marquess of Queensberry’s youngest son. John Sholto Douglass was an eccentric, arrogant, and ill-tempered who strongly opposed the relations between Douglas and his son. He considered Wilde a vile man and sought to save young Douglas from the evil friendship, which was later referred to as a relationship. John Sholto Douglass went further to threaten to stop all financial supplies and disown young Douglass in case he proceeded with his relationship with Wilde. When he realized the threats were null, he put all his efforts to ensure he ruined Wilde’s reputation as well as taint his name. As such, John Sholto Douglas threatened hotel and restaurant owners with beatings whenever he got information that his son and Wilde had been spotted at the location. However, John Sholto went forward to show up at St. James Theatre, where he ranted about the author’s alleged and perverted relations (Raby 2).
At that time, it was the same time for the play The Importance of Being Earnest by Wilde to be shown. In this case, Queensberry rants were quite disturbing to the audience, including influential people all over the region. Wilde decided to charge Queensberry for libel. Therefore, he approached Travers Humphreys and went forward to file for a warrant, which led to Lord Queensberry’s arrest later on the 2nd of March (Raby 1). However, Wilde’s move to go to court turned out to be a poor decision that would then ruin his life.
Sir Edward Clarke was among London’s prominent attorneys, and he gave a splendid opening statement. In as much as Clarke did everything possible to glorify Wilde, where he highlighted the weight of Queensberry’s actions against his client in the previous months, they could not match their opponent. Lord Queensberry together with his representative argued in their defense that Wilde had besought 12 boys and committed sodomy (Raby 2). Therefore, he was liable for a number of acts labeled as gross indecencies. During the preliminary bail hearing, there was testimony from chambermaids that they had witnessed young boys in Wilde’s bed. Furthermore, a hotel housekeeper also testified to seeing fecal stains on Wilde’s beds. The testimonies led to Wilde being denied bail. During the cross-examination, Wilde was devastated. When the court found justification and facts in Queensberry’s accusations of Wilde as a sodomite, he had to withdraw charges he had presented to court as advised by his attorney.
Consequently, during the trial, Wilde had sufficient time to escape the hearing and run to France but chose to stay and face charges. As he waited, he was arrested within a short time and charged with 25 counts of conspiracy and gross indecency. The court ruled that Wilde be imprisoned and further sere two years of hard labor. Wilde’s move to go to court against the defendant had turned against and led to his false arrest and imprisonment.
Work Cited
Raby, Peter. Oscar Wilde. CUP Archive, 1988.