Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System
Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System
Racism in the justice system united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System
Looking Past Prejudice: How Justice Can Be Served In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection for protecting white womanhood, supporting the case of Victoria Price …show more content…
Even though the lives’ of Victoria and Ruby completely breach both Southern lady demeanor and the ideals of segregation, society instantly labels them as innocent white women when they accuse black men of rape. The black man's alleged uncontrollable sexual craving for the white women poses a threat to white Southern culture. The jury, composed entirely of white Southerners, can’t look past these preconceived notions, as the protection of white womanhood is the heart of their culture. In fact, most of the five thousand lynching cases of 1880 to 1940 involve black men accused of the rape or sexual assault of a white woman. The feeling that white women need protection from black men is merely one part of the prejudice white men have concerning different races, but one part that prevents justice from being served to the nine Scottsboro boys in the court of law. In addition, the jury fails to recognize the disabilities and special circumstances that would prohibit some of the men from being physically able to commit the crime because of their racial prejudice. As the documentary explains, “Two of them
After the black boys were taken into custody and the Alabama National Guard was called for the safety of the defendants, Stephen Roddy who did not specialize in criminal cases and Milo Moody, a 70-year-old local lawyer, were appointed as the defense attorney so as to represent the Scottsboro boys without having an opportunity to consult with the accused. Eight of the nine boys were found guilty and sentenced to death following the three-day trials, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Each lacked the sufficient evidence for conviction, most especially for the death penalty. Lastly, heroes emerged from each trial and made small but solid steps towards equal justice for all. “ROOSEVELT IS ASKED TO INTERVENE TO PROTECT SCOTTSBORO NEGROES: Warning of 'Massacre' of Seven Prisoners and Their Lawyers at Decatur (Ala.) Court Today, Defense Counsel Wire President a Plea to Obtain State Troops” (Linder), reads a headline from the New York Times on November 20, 1933. The nine Scottsboro boys accused of rape and their attorneys were scared to death, but the government did not seem to acknowledge their danger.
On March 25, 1931 nine African American youths were falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned for the rape of two white girls. Over the next six consecutive years, trials were held to attempt to prove the innocence of these nine young men. The court battles ranged from the U.S Supreme court to the Scottsboro county court with almost every decision the same---guilty. Finally, with the proceedings draining Alabama financially and politically, four of the boys ...
This gave the southern culture, which already despised them, one more thing to add to their list of allegations. The Scottsboro Boys got into a fight with white hobos on the train they were traveling on. This spread to the conductor who stopped the train in Alabama and alerted the town of the exchange. Unlike To Kill a Mockingbird, this fight did not come up in trial, but it led to the mob of white men outside the train, and the accusation of rape from Ruby Bates and Victoria Price. In Lee’s trial, Mr. Gilmer questioned Tom Robinson further about his charges, “You were given thirty days once for disorderly conduct, Robinson?”(Lee 197) Scout later adds,”Mr. Gilmer would sincerely tell the jury that anyone convicted of disorderly could easily have the heart to take advantage of Mayella Ewell,” (Lee 197). Scout is explaining how the prosecutor made a point, and “played to the jury”. He made Tom Robinson look like the villain again. Put him back into the stereotypical box of black men at the time, and how they were bread to put southern womanhood in
The Scottsboro and Maycomb trials took place in the 1930s, where the trials both had identical causes with the same conclusion, though its a tragic event that has influenced the world today. The resemblance between Scottsboro and Maycomb leads the people into thinking about the Great Depression and the most infamous case that took place in Scottsboro, relating to Maycomb. Though there are no reasonable causes or hateful affairs between opposing characters, it seems like racism between whites and the Afro-Americans has started the conflict. Coming to white vs Afro-American cases, the jurors would always favor the white over the Afro-American because they believe its not right to do such thing as acquitting the Afro-American due to their old-fashioned values and prejudiced mind. Such tragedy happening in the history has influenced the world today in many ways, the novel To Kill a Mockingbird is one project that’s inspired to be written.
Gaines’ novel is centered on a massive injustice, which is a young man who is falsely convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. When Jefferson was brought into a trial for the murders of the three white men in the bar, most of the jury quickly assumed that he was guilty due to his skin color, because, at that time, the assumption of innocence does not
.guilty. . .guilty. . .guilty. . .” (211). By using only four guilty’s, Lee is able to demonstrate that the word of two white people has a greater effect than that of an African American even though the man who was put up for his life had not harmed, nor had he ever damaged anything he came into contact with.
“The New Jim Crow” is an article by Michelle Alexander, published by the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. Michelle is a professor at the Ohio State Moritz college of criminal law as well as a civil rights advocate. Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law is part of the world’s top education system, is accredited by the American Bar Association, and is a long-time member of the American Law association. The goal of “The New Jim Crow” is to inform the public about the issues of race in our country, especially our legal system. The article is written in plain English, so the common person can fully understand it, but it also remains very professional. Throughout the article, Alexander provides factual information about racial issues in our country. She relates them back to the Jim Crow era and explains how the large social problem affects individual lives of people of color all over the country. By doing this, Alexander appeals to the reader’s ethos, logos, and pathos, forming a persuasive essay that shifts the understanding and opinions of all readers.
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).
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
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
To begin, parallel and conflicting characteristics can be realized by exploring the judges of the two cases. Judge Horton and Judge Taylor both presided over the cases. Judge Horton was the second of three judges in the Scottsboro cases, and Judge Taylor was the fictional judge in To Kill a Mockingbird. The two both exhibited undeniable sympathy to the defendants in the cases. Judge Horton sympathizes with the nine Scottsboro boys by declaring, “You are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black … you are trying whether or not this defendant forcibly ravished a woman” (People and Events). It is obvious that Judge Horton was unprejudiced and believed the boys should be treated with equality. This attitude is akin to the one of Judge Taylor; Taylor assigned Atticus Finch, a notable lawyer, to the case of the fictional black character Tom Robinson. Maxwell Green, an inexperience rookie, should have been assigned the case; however due to Taylor’s empathy, Tom obtained a decent lawyer who would do h...
In the book West Side Story by Arthur Laurents there were many prejudices. Prejudice is a favoring or dislike of something without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge. There were prejudices in West Side Story that had to do with the types of people, their races and sex. Sometimes prejudice can be in small doses and can be meaningless, other times prejudice can be very serious and cause death.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
People are responsible for acting according to their conscience. The justice system was created in order to be our aid in making moral and ethical decisions, but when the Justice system fails, we should still be able to follow our conscience to make the right the decision. In Harper Lee’s novel “To Kill a Mockingbird,” one of the characters, Atticus Finch, helps not only characters in the book, but the readers, understand that the legal system does not always serve justice, in fact, the legal system only is as moral and just as the community it serves. In the town of Maycomb, just like many towns in the American south during the 1930s, racism as a personal feeling and racism as a cultural, legal, and economic institution are practically one