Stevenson backdrop is the first-hand story of his client named Walter McMillian who was wrongfully convicted of a murder that he did not commit. McMillian was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death despite the fact that there were at least twenty people with him at his home that could corroborate his whereabouts at the time of the murder. Stevenson leads us through the events surrounding McMillians profoundly unjust incarceration, the fight to vindicate his client, his subsequent exoneration, and his tormented life after exoneration through his eventual death in 2013. Woven between the chapters of Walter McMillians story, we learn the stories of other men, women, and children who have been failed by our justice system. Men, women and children …show more content…
without the money or the resources to hire good legal representation to fight for them. The single thread that connects them all is institutional oppression. Stevenson’s stories prove that the socioeconomically disadvantaged members of our society are being gravely mishandled. Stevenson makes a powerful statement in the book that makes us realize that it is not just a problem with the legal system, it is a problem with all of us if we do nothing to fix the injustices. “The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned. We are all implicated when we allow other people to be mistreated.” Mandatory minimum sentencing, solitary confinement, and overly harsh prison terms for juveniles compounded by the greed and ambition on the part of corrupt legal officials that are “aiming at victory, at winning in the fight, not at aiding the court to discover the facts” (Bonsignore 2006 p337). Our text makes the analogous comparison between our present trial method as being “the equivalent of throwing pepper in the eyes of a surgeon when he is performing an operation” (Bonsignore 2006 p337). Mandatory minimum sentencing, solitary confinement, and overly harsh prison terms for juveniles. It is plain to see throughout every chapter of his book that Stevenson’s personal and professional undertaking in life is to defend the defenseless. This point is reflected well in this quote “we are all implicated when we allow others to be mistreated” (Stevenson 2014 p 15). It appears that Stevenson hopes that by sharing these stories of present day widespread persecution it will spark our compassion for all humans and inspire us to fight for equal justice for all There are two stories that stand out in Stevenson’s book that are different than all the rest. The story of Walter McMillian and the story of Herbert Richardson. Stevenson took on Walter McMillians case after he was on death row for a murder that he says he didn’t commit. After Stevenson begins to uncover blatant injustices that plagued the case from the very beginning, he decides to file an appeal based on the grounds that prosecutors withheld evidence that would have weakened their case. As the years go by, and they prepare for trial, Walter sits in jail watching his life go by. At the trial, in front of all of Walters friends and family, Stevenson convinces the court that a racially biased and corrupt police department was responsible for setting Walter up. Their motive was that he was a poor black man involved in an affair with a white woman in town. Eventually, the judge sees the truth and Walter is released from jail. Although he is finally a free man again, his six year stay in prison has changed his life forever. He loses his wife and child, his business suffers, and he eventually begins to suffer from early onset trauma-induced Alzheimer’s. It breaks Stevenson sons heart to see how much suffering Walter has endured during his lifetime due to racially fueled false charges and a subsequent conviction. McMillians case stands out among the rest because of the fact that justice was intentionally and corruptly denied to McMillian. The other case that stands out was the case of Herbert Richardson who was on death row for accidentally killed a child instead of his estranged girlfriend.
In a deranged and love-sick effort to win her back, Richardson hatched a plan to place a bomb on her front porch. His plan was to scare her into running back into his arms for safety and security. After placing the bomb on her front porch, he went across the street to watch it all unfold. As it turned out, tragically her niece was the one that found the bomb and rather than just terrify her, it killed her. He went to trial and the state invoked an unprecedented theory of transferred intent to validate his death penalty sentence. Stevenson took on Richardson’s case because according to Alabama’s capital statute murder must be intentional in order for a defendant to be eligible for the death penalty. Stevenson’s reasoning was that although Richardson had a huge heart, his childhood traumas, mother’s death, and the fact that he was a war veteran with psychological health issues, he made a bad decision. Stevenson petitioned the state for a stay of execution. Although he was unsuccessful in getting a stay of execution, I believe that that this case was one where Stevenson’s drive to right the legal systems wrongs made him overlook the fact that Richardson was a murderer no matter who the victim ended up being. Sure, there were rules broken in his sentencing, but he murdered a child. If we had an inquisitorial system of justice like we learned about in Lecture 5.2 part 1 and 2 where the truth was paramount to the procedure, he would have likely received the most severe punishment
possible.
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
Regardless of a personal dislike of reading about history, the book was captivating enough to get through. Ann Field Alexander, author of “Race Man: The Rise and Fall of the ‘Fighting Editor,’ John Mitchell Jr”, explains the hardships of a black male activist in the same time period as Lebsock’s novel. The main character Mitchell was president of a bank and ran for a political office, but was tried with fraud. After Mitchell was sentenced as guilty, the case was found faulty and was dismissed. Mitchell was still bankrupt and full of shame when he died. On the same subject of Lucy Pollard’s death, “Murder on Trial: 1620-2002”, written by Robert Asher, included the Pollard murder in chapter three of the novel. The aspect that any well written historically based novel brings to its readers is the emotion of being involved in the development and unraveling of events. As was said before, one who enjoys a steady but often slow novel that sets out a timeline of events with more than enough information to be satisfactory, then “A Murder in Virginia” is a riveting
The purpose of this essay is to compare three very similar cases, the Scottsboro Trials, Brown v. Mississippi, and the fictional trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird; and to prove why the defendant of the third trial never had a chance. Each took place in the rural South in the 1920’s and 30’s and involved the unfair conviction of young black males by all-white juries pressured by the threat of mob violence. Each lacked the evidence sufficient for conviction, most especially for the death penalty. Last, heroes emerged from each trial and made small but solid steps towards equal justice for all.
In the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson is a memoir where Bryan Stevenson guides us through his life as a lawyer for those who are death sentence. From 1983 when he was student at Harvard Law to 2013 where he lost a client he was defending for years , he takes us through several cases he has taken over the years and showed how they personally impacted him as not only as a lawyer , but a person as well.
Stevenson discusses his journey as an attorney for the condemned on death row. He speaks of
Stevenson then went on to put a scary touch to the story by telling us
Stevenson wants the reader to feel enraged on behalf of the people about whom he wrote. Using that anger, he wants the readers to be motivated to change the outcome so similar bad situations are less likely to happen again. For example, Stevenson writes about Charlie, a 14-year-old boy who was sentenced as an adult and taken to the adult county jail (120). There, Charlie was sexually abused and raped by multiple people in three days (123, 124). Stevenson tells this story knowing that people will get angry on behalf of Charlie. Since Charlie was a child people become more upset because in society children are precious and should not have their innocence taken from them. Stevenson wants the anger to motivate people to make changes to the system so there will be no more
Stevenson's Depiction of the Murder of Sir Danvers Carew in The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
One of the major events in Harper Lee’s award-winning novel To Kill a Mockingbird is Tom Robinson’s trial. It is based on the Scottsboro Case that took place in 1931 in Alabama, in which several black men were accused of raping two white women. Both the Scottsboro Boys and Tom Robinson are unfairly judged, however, because of prejudice against colored people. The racial discrimination makes whites’ testimony more believable even when it contradicts itself. The same happens in To Kill a Mockingbird. As we delve deeper into the case and get increasingly closer to the truth, it is quite suprising to see that Mayella Ewell is the true villain rather than a victim. She shall and must bear full responsibility for her actions because she makes the decision to tempt Tom Robinson, gives false testimony in court that directly leads to Tom’s death, and has been well aware of the consequences of her behaviors.
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
Maidment, M. (2009). When justice is a game: Unravelling wrongful convictions in Canada. Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
Hulbert, M. A. (2011). Pursuing justice: An introduction to justice studies. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
In Darkly Dreaming Dexter, Jeff Lindsay presents Dexter Morgan, a serial killer who kills only criminals, and in doing so, generates controversy about what constitutes morally justifiable behaviour. Lindsay’s protagonist blurs the lines between right and wrong, exposes the inherent flaws of justice systems, and ultimately forces the reader to evaluate his or her principles. While many North Americans believe that murder is unquestionably evil, I disagree on the basis that this stance overlooks the need to take into account the circumstances of the situation—such as who the victim is, who has committed the murder, and why he or she has done so—which are crucial factors in passing moral judgement on an offender’s actions. I argue that Dexter is correct to channel his sociopathy into something positive—disposing of individuals who have committed atrocious crimes in a vigilante fashion—because North American justice systems are incredibly flawed, as they allow heinous criminals to walk free too often due to prevailing social biases, systematic loopholes, and lack of manpower. Dexter compensates for this defect because, unlike justice systems, he eliminates criminals without prejudice towards the offender or the victim, operates on a straightforward basis free of political rigmarole, and achieves results in an efficient fashion, all of which make North American society a safer place, save lives of would-be victims, and spare their families mental anguish. Ultimately, this reveals that the line between what is right and wrong is not as clear as one might initially think, as well as the troubling notion that North American institutional structures are in need of reconstruction if readers are more confident in justice delivered by a ...
These injustices have begun long before Tom’s trial, but it is his trial which epitomizes the problems with our society. The first witness was simply just a misguided fellow named Heck Tate who it seems didn’t have much to offer to the case. Next, Atticus Finch called Bob Ewell to the stand. When I saw Ewell take the stand such a fierce hatred rose within me that I began to shake and tremble. Ewell wrongfully accused Tom of raping his daughter Mayella, however, with the grace of God, Atticus Finch had shown that it was very possible that it was Bob Ewell who because he was a lefty could have beat Mayella. If it were not for great men like Atticus Finch I would have lost all hope for this world. As I watched Mayella take the stand I wondered how such a kind looking person could be someone of such poor character. Her words seemed to paint a picture of a sad life; one where a father neglects her and she has fallen under hard times. Atticus, after pointing out it was probably Bob who beat her, asked Mayella who it really was that beat her. Mayella made it clear it was Tom Robinson, upon which Atticus asked Tom to stand. To the astonishment of the court Tom was handicapped! Tom was then called to the stand where he laid open for all to see the truth, explaining that it was Mayella who came on to him (that treacherous woman!). Soon enough the trial ended and every one awaited the verdict of the jury. The next few hours were the most nerve wracking of my life.