The Trial by Franz Kafka is a remarkable study of the effects of a dictatorship upon freedoms granted in most democracies of today. Throughout the book, Josef K. experiences numerous violations of the principles of law that we take for granted in daily life. Kafka takes this idea of a corrupt and omnipresent justice system and tells us of the life of a man that did nothing wrong. Even at the conclusion of the book, when Josef K. is executed, there is still no indication of the nature of the crime with which he was accused. This is the first, and most heinous, violation of the principles of justice.
             When Josef K. is first arrested, the reader assumes that K. has committed some sort of crime that makes him deserving of the arrest. It is soon found out, however, that the guards arresting K. have no idea of why he is being arrested. K. is then forced to wait, held prisoner in his apartment, for an inspector to arrive, presumably to inform him of what crime he was arrested for and to take him away. In fact, upon the inspector's arrival, K. is simply told, yet again, that he is to be arrested. This continues throughout the book until its conclusion. Yet, throughout the proceedings of the trial, Josef K. and his temporary lawyer were able to submit petitions for evidence to defend K. against a crime that neither of them knew. There is obviously no fairness in this act at all. How is the accused supposed to put up a defense against a charge they do not know of? Evidence is meaningless because there is no idea of what will actually be useful. On top of this, it becomes evident to the reader that evidence made no difference in the trial, and instead, the outcome was solely based on connections, contacts, and acquaintances. Even if the right people were known, which seemed to be nearly impossible in the court, the odds of swaying their opinions seemed to be futile because there were so many people involved. Thus it can be...