It is human nature to judge. Some sort of prejudice, whether it be uncontrolled or accounted for, exists at every level of the justice system. While it is the court’s responsibility to abstain from letting their preconceived notions affect their proceedings and final verdict, Adnan Syed’s fate was largely dictated by his racial and ethnic background. Had Adnan not been of Pakistani descent or a Muslim, the various accusations of the prosecution, such as the portraying of Hae’s murder as an ‘honor killing’ done by Adnan, would have held no basis in court. Without a culture to set blame on, the prosecution would have had to base Adnan’s motive on simple heartbreak - a much less convincing argument than Adnan murdering Hae because of her relationship …show more content…
Before the trial began, the judge asked a preliminary question to determine the existence of bias in the jury. Around half the possible jurors stand up with qualms about their impartiality. However, even with these precautions and with the remaining jurors claiming that Adnan’s religion and culture did not affect their judgement, stereotypes and prejudice against Adnan still existed. In episode 10 of the podcast, juror William Owens is quoted saying “But I know in some cultures women are second class citizens and maybe that’s what it was (referring to why Adnan murdered Hae),” and juror Stella Armstrong recalls discussing Adnan’s culture in the trial proceedings, noting that “[in] Arabic culture men rule, not women.” These ideas about muslim culture, even if jurors swore would not affect their judgement, played a part in their sentencing of Adnan. Cristina Gutierrez, Adnan’s lawyer, knew this too, leading her to spend an inordinate amount of time elaborating on how Adnan is just a normal American teenager in an attempt to stifle any prejudice against him. While extreme anti-muslim sentiment might not have been prominent in the jurors, ideas about Islam bled into how Adnan was seen by them, leading him to be judged as a Muslim and Pakistani - not as the normal American teenager that Adnan was and that Gutierrez aimed for. This characterization of Adnan as a devout muslim brought with it a slew of explanations for why Adnan would be driven to murder Hae that depended on his alleged devoutness for his religion to function. The possibility that Adnan murdered Hae because she had disrespected his culture would not have existed without this characterization - a characterization that existed even in spite of evidence that Adnan was indeed a typical American teenager, such as his smoking habits, participation in sports,
Can you imagine being convicted of first degree murder at only 17 years of age? Adnan Syed couldn't believe it either. In fact he was mortified when they charged him of brutally suffocating, his ex-girlfriend Hea Min Lee, to death. Adnan Syed was a pawn that the Baltimore detectives played with, a mere dupe to cast off as the true killer. Syed is like many Americans, he was never granted a fair trial. There is some actors that make Syed guilty, but perhaps it was just pure coincidence that got Adan wrapped up in this whole mess. One simply can't overlook the major factors that make him innocent enough to grant him a second trial. Adan has spent half of his life in prison, due to a wrongful conviction that happened many
Murder Could you believe or even imagine a charming, handsome and popular high school boy killing his ex-girl-friend? This is the case involving Adnan Syed in the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. "On January 13, 1999, a girl named Hae Min Lee, a senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, disappeared. A month later, her body turned up in a city park.
You’re woken up by police officers one morning. They say that they are taking you to be questioned for the murder of Hae Min Lee. That’s what happened to Adnan Syed, a young man sentenced to life in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend. This would be any old hear-it-and-forget-it case, except that there were multiple problems with the case. The evidence that the State used was flawed. So, because there has not been any evidence presented that can prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Adnan is not guilty.
On January 13th, 1999, a high school girl from Baltimore, Maryland, Hae Min Lee, disappeared after school. Hae was found just a few miles away in Leakin Park, a few weeks later, where it was determined that the cause of death was manual strangulation. Not long after, Hae’s ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, was arrested and tried for her murder and is now spending his life in prison. After hearing Sarah Koneig’s Podcast, Serial where she went back to re-investigate the trial, it became clear that the jury does not have enough evidence to convict Adnan Syed for the murder of Hae Min Lee for many reasons including, the lack of evidence, lack of motive, and the reliance of memory is not enough to convict Adnan Syed. Evidence is key to solving a murder and in the case of Hae Min Lee’s murder, there was not enough evidence to prove that Adnan Syed killed her.
When the jury dropped the hammer on Adnan Syed and found him guilty of murdering Hae Min Lee, there were some flaws in the case that may have skewed the case against the 17-year old from Baltimore, Maryland. The case is about Hae Min Lee, a responsible Woodlawn High student, being murdered by strangulation, and Adnan is the supposed killer. Sarah Koenig is a radio announcer that took interest in this case because the story was interesting. The case is about Hae Min Lee, a responsible Woodlawn High student, being murdered by strangulation, and Adnan is the supposed killer. Sarah Koenig is a radio announcer that took interest in this case because the story was interesting.
Family’s usually tend to force their kids in to the religion they follow and expect them to make no sin which leads to the hide and seek game between the parents and the kids. Adnan’s family were Muslims that migrated from pashuar, Pakistan. Where the smallest thing as a man and women that are not related cannot be having a conversation what so ever. Dating was not acceptable, it’s either marriage or single. Adnan was not allowed to date or have girl friends or be a normal American teenage but he did it anyways without his parent’s knowledge. The prosecutor at the time claimed that Adnan’s motive to strangle Hae is that he gave up his religion, put himself in a river of sin and dissed his parent’s by dating a girl but when Hae called it off he was left with nothing. He killed her out of not love but pride. Even though this is an understandable point, Adnan was never really a strict Muslim. He goes out clubbing, drink alcohol, have sex with different girls…pretty much everything a Muslim person should not be doing. Him dating Hae didn’t make him anymore sin that he usually make in a daily basis. He never felt like hae have taken him out of his religion road because he was never in one. He didn’t have a motive to kill Hae because they both moved on in to other people but kept a good friendship between them so all of a sudden he couldn’t have felt betrayed enough to kill her. The reasonable question here is why did Adnan tell the police officer in the first interview that he was expecting a ride from hae that day and later when interviewed again denied asking hae a ride because he have his own car and don’t have a reason to ask her for a ride knowing that she always picks up her little cousin from school right when she gets out of school. Why would he lie about that, and did he really ask her for a ride as Jay and some of Hae’s friends claimed or he did not. Even though this
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
In conclusion, we have seen that the race of the victim and the emotionality of the victim impact statements highly affects the jury’s empathy and therefore might influence their decision making. Understanding the interaction between the racial in-group/out-group and empathy may allow defense attorneys to lead jurors for harsher punishments for out-group racial groups and more lenient punishments for in-groups by playing on juror empathy and thus putting emotions before law and reason. Consequently, in any capital punishment case, race of the victim and race of the jury, could be the difference between life and death for a defendant and therefore needs to be studied further.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
The main purpose of this article is to look at the possible link between race and exoneration, and how race and wrongful convictions lead to the exonerations. There were three reasons that the authors chose this topic to research. The first reason was the research previously done in the field show racial biased in the criminal justice system. This paper looks at how that effects wrongful conviction and the subsequent exoneration. The second reason is because if there is an innocent person in prison that means that the real culprit is still out there, and more than likely committing more crimes. The third reason is racial composition of the dyad, victim and the perpetrator. This article is the first to mention the dyad and the authors focus on that in their discussion of wrongful conviction. This article is a very insightful look at the problem of the racial bias in the system that leads to wrongful conviction and how that leads to exoneration. It effectively explains the causes of wrongful convictions and how race affects those causes, especially how the dyad is incorporated in it.
The incident in which Colten Boushie was shot by Gerald Stanley is an example of an interaction of 2 different groups in society and their behaviour towards each other. In “[exposing] racial tensions”, that examines the racial discrimination which might have created a bias for members the jury to find the man of a similar social class or background not guilty. As a minority, Indigenous people are small in number compared to the rest of society and as a result are seen as a lower class on the social hierarchy. This case displays the idea that when minorities face sociological problems within the legal system or in general, society, they are less able to ensure the justice being served. A sociologist would be interested in studying the response to Boushie’s death and what general patterns of human behaviour arise from the Indigenous
One of the most contested judicial cases of the 21st century, the case against Adnan Syed for the murder of Hae Min Lee continues to captivate a global audience. One such individual is Sarah Koenig, an American journalist and host and executive producer of Serial, a podcast dedicated to determining the truth of what occurred to Hae Lee and the validity of Adnan’s conviction on a platform tailored to the general public. On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee disappeared, only to be found dead in a park on February 9. The cause of death, according to the official autopsy report, was manual strangulation and Adnan Syed, her ex-boyfriend, was arrested for the homicide in the ensuing weeks following an eyewitness report from Jay Wilds, a former friend and
"The Species of the World. " Racial prejudice, Jury Empathy and sentencing in death penalty cases. New York, New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Mohammed, K. G. (07/2010).
Sitting in a courtroom for a crime you didn’t commit, the future of your life depends on the jury and BOOM! You are in prison for the rest of your life and only 17 years old. On January 13, 1999, a senior of Woodland High School, Hae Min Lee was murdered by manual strangulation and later that year her ex boyfriend was convicted for first degree murder. He was convicted for a crime he did not commit. In the podcast “Serial”, explains this murder case with interviews, recordings from the trials, evidence, and even Adnan's perspective of everything based on this murder. In the podcast you never find out if Adnan is guilty or not but with all the evidence against him doesn't prove he killed Hae. Adnan Syed is not guilty.
Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2000. 167-186. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secon Ogawa, Brian K. Color of Justice: Culturally Sensitive Treatment of Minority Crime Victims. Allen and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA, 1999. Saleh Hanna, Viviane.