Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
'Johnson v.M intosh': case analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Johnson v. M’Intosh and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock have been compared to Dredd Scott v. Sandford in the way they categorized a certain group of people as “inferior” and allowed them to be subjugated to the “tyranny of the majority”. As stated by Echo-Hawk, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in particular “turned on patently racist notions of white supremacy, and refused to address claims of the plaintiff” (Echo-Hawk 164).
...e to breach Supreme Court sovereignty would render the different minorities, residing in the United States, helpless to further governmental legislature justifying racial discrimination. In their struggle to preserve racial inequality segregationists immorally resorted to using violence against children. Through “a sharp realisation of the shameful discrimination directed at small children” the world perceived an inconsistency in a nation that preached freedom for all, though denied the very same right to its children. Ernest Green and the other eight students “learned unmistakably that they possessed irresistible power” during the crisis but only if they realised it and united against discrimination and racism.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Another similar case was the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott, being a black man during the 1820's, was yet again considered inferior to bring his case to the court. From a reader's point of view, Dred Scott's case was very legit. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Scott a free man. All of the blacks going through the 35'36 altitude/latitude line were said to be free men. When Dred Scott entered Illinois, he entered thinking he was a free man, until his owner assaulted him upon the return. Dred Scott did his best to bring not one but three assault cases to the court against his "owner", John F. A. Sanford; however, the court dismissed him as inferior to take any participation or even demand a fair trial. The court also called upon the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional because of deprivation of personal property, which in this case was Dred Scott - a property of John Sanford. Eventually the sons of Sanford purchased Scott and his wife, and set them free. Scott died just a year after that.
Based on the pronouncements of the court on May 17, 1954, everyone in the courtroom was shocked after it became clear that Marshall was right in his claim about the unconstitutionality of legal segregation in American public schools. Essentially, this court’s decision became a most important turning point in U.S. history because the desegregation case had been won by an African American attorney. Additionally, this became a landmark decision in the sense that it played a big role in the crumbling of the discriminatory laws against African Americans and people of color in major socioeconomic areas, such as employment, education, and housing (Stinson, 2008). Ultimately, Marshall’s legal achievements contributed significantly to the criminal justice field.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) ‘equal but separate’ decision robbed it of its meaning and confirmed this wasn’t the case as the court indicated this ruling did not violate black citizenship and did not imply superior and inferior treatment ,but it indeed did as it openly permitted racial discrimination in a landmark decision of a 8-1 majority ruling, it being said was controversial, as white schools and facilities received near to more than double funding than black facilities negatively contradicted the movement previous efforts on equality and maintaining that oppression on
After his clients were found guilty of rape and sentenced to the death penalty for a third time, Sam Leibovitz noticed a disturbing trend in the courtroom. Out of the multitude of jurors used in each hearing, none of them were black. Every single one was a white southerner, and Leibovitz felt as though the jury was rigged in favor of the prosecution. This was exceedingly common in the South at this time, as many states excluded people of color from sitting on a jury. In Norris versus Alabama, Leibovitz voiced his concerns to the United States Supreme Court. This landmark case was unorthodox, as Leibovitz had the jury rolls from the cases brought up all the way from Alabama to be read by the justices. The preponderance of the names on the lists were those of whites, but there were a few names belonging to blacks at the bottom of some of the pages. These were all hastily scrawled, as if they were added recently. Leibovitz argued that they were written there merely to show that Alabama did not intentionally influence the jury against the boys, when they actually did. The Supreme Court voted for Leibovitz, and ruled that all people, no matter their skin color, should be able to vote on a jury. This verdict would be instrumental for later race-based proceedings in the future. During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, many crucial cases were won because of empathetic, equal
Lasting hatred from the civil war, and anger towards minorities because they took jobs in the north probably set the foundation for these laws, but it has become difficult to prove. In this essay, I will explain how the Separate but Equal Laws of twentieth century America crippled minorities of that time period forever. Separate but Equal doctrine existed long before the Supreme Court accepted it into law, and on multiple occasions it arose as an issue before then. In 1865, southern states passed laws called “Black Codes,” which created restrictions on the freed African Americans in the South. This became the start of legal segregation as juries couldn’t have African Americans, public schools became segregated, and African Americans had restrictions on testifying against majorities.
As the credits roll we see the blinds of a three-pane window slowly being lifted up, after they finish the camera moves forward revealing to our gaze the reality on the other side of the open window. It faces the back of many other buildings, the courtyard they enclose, and a sliver view of the backstreet. More importantly, it faces many other windows just like it. Behind each one of those there are people, going about their day, doing mundane tasks, unaware of being observed. In his 1954 movie “Rear Window” Alfred Hitchcock invites us to engage in the guilt free observation of the lives of others. The main character, photographer L. B. Jefferies, is home stuck with a broken leg encased in a cast that goes all the way to his hip, providing the perfect excuse for him to amuse himself in this hot Manhattan summer by engaging in the seemly harmless act of looking into the many windows he can see from his back apartment. Casual, harmless, voyeurism has been part of the human behavior for ages but in the sixty years since the movie was released it has gained increasing traction. Reality television, Movies, TV shows, YouTube, blogging, Instagram and Facebook are examples of modern tools that allow us to engage in the observation of others while remaining protectively hidden from their returning gaze. In its essence the casual voyeuristic actions we engage in while observing others when using these new media tools follows the same pattern of behavior described in the movie, with the same positive and negative consequences. Casual voyeurism distinguishes itself from pathological voyeurism, which is characterized by a preference in obtaining sexual gratification only from spying others, by the removal of the sexual component from the equat...
First, it is important to know what Critical Race theory is and where it came from. Critical Race theory came from a number of scholars, most of color and in law school, that “challenges the ways in which race and racial power are constructed and represented in American legal culture and, more generally, in American society as a while ( Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995, p. xi). Critical Race Theory “rejects the prevailing orthodoxy that scholarship should be or could be "neutral" and "objective." We believe that legal scholarship about race in America can never be written from a distance of detachment or with an attitude of objectivity. To the extent that racial power is exercised legally and ideologically, legal scholarship about race is an important site for the construction of that power, and thus is always a factor, If only ideologically, in the economy of racial power itself (Crenshaw et al. 1995, p. xi).” In other words, Critical Race theory is a belief that racism is almost engrained in...
Ian F. Haney López. Racism on Trial: The Chicano Fight for Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003
A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of the American Legal Process Race and the American Legal Process, Volume II . New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
“They [they Blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” a quotes by Roger B. Taney. The Dred Scott vs. Sandford court case was one of many segregation court cases that the Supreme Court had to deal with. The Dred Scott vs. Sandford case was about an African American that was a slave living in a slave prohibited stated that tried to buy his freedom and lost in court.
Turner, Billy. 1986. “Race and Peremptory Challenges During Voir Dire: Do Prosecution and Defense Agree?” Journal of Criminal Justice 14: 61-69.
The criminal justice system in the United States seek to create equality for all its citizens under the law, however, existing systems give advantage to some groups over others. Systemic bias, along with prejudice and generalization, has created division among groups in many social issues. Uncovering disparities between various group interactions is crucial in addressing long standing social issues; this is a good first step at fixing these issues. This paper will analyze the U.S criminal justice system’s treatment of normative white groups over ethnic minorities through privilege, in areas of race, gender, and social class, to show the results of such interactions.