More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of the american justice system
Effects of gender equality
Gender inequality and equality in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The fight for gender equality spans from the present to some of the earliest civilizations. In America, women were granted the right to vote in 1920. Yet as years passed many states did not deem women fit to decide the fate of their peers in courts. In “The Woman Juror”, Burnita S. Matthews hopes to emphasize that women are not a “defect of sex” and have identical qualifications as their male counterparts regarding serving on a jury. She uses exemplification and description to reveal the lack of logic in female oppression and appeal to the audience’s sympathy and understanding.
Matthews presents a description of the expectations of a juror and how women are excluded from being a juror, without sound reason. The reasoning behind American courts
…show more content…
having ‘a jury of your peers’ determine the ruling of the defendant was to give a generally unbiased case. A diverse group of people, that held uniformity as U.S. citizens, got to decide the verdict from different viewpoints. The court sought “human beings” who are “free and trustworthy” and that provides the reader with the moral basis of jurors. Since it states “human beings” rather than just men, it leaves the audience questioning the grounds on which the female population is excluded from this group. Since you cannot decide the morals of a person by anything other than their character, gender does not prohibit women from performing this task. They also qualify as human beings. The author is stressing that women are seen as the defect of sex without sound reasoning; they are unrightfully being oppressed and devalued from group that they fit within quite easily. This general description of the requirement jurors allows the audience to understand the unjustified isolation of the female sex. Matthews describes how the special treatment that women receive, in order to fulfill their maternal roles, can limit themselves and their children. Matthew summarizes how the courts excusing mothers from jury duty to aid their children hinders women from being about to being able to protect them “without as well as within the home.” Women not being able to experience and take part in the world prohibits them from understanding of what goes on in the judicial systems and reality in general. Without proper knowledge, they are never going to be able to prepare and help their children. Mothers wish to take part in the juries to allow them to prepare themselves and be able to properly guide their children through the world without shielded eyes. This description highlights how women are reduced to housewife roles- managing the family and household. Women are capable fill a more diverse set of roles that are not deemed as feminine. Even in those roles lie a greater importance than cooking and cleaning; they are nurturing the future of the world. This pathologically appeals to the audience, the state legislators, understanding of being put down and restricted. The author uses exemplification to place the imbalance of rights in a real world perspective and shows that women can give an equal amount of jury performance as men.
Matthews uses an anecdote from a Minnesota attorney general who to noticed that women jurors were “visibly affected by the exhibition.” Yet even with becoming overturn by emotion “a verdict of guilty was promptly returned” with even results from both men and women. A woman’s reception of information may be more emotional, however it does not cloud their judgement. They can be affected by their experiences and bias and still reach the verdict that men reach using reasoning and logic. This highlights the sameness in the qualifications of the sexes. The use of an example allows the audience to picture women in court easier and it illustrates their qualifications through real life instances. It is common for people to feel misjudged based on minimal information concerning them. In this situation, the audience is able to relate to the misjudging of women as being overly emotional. The topic of a jury makes the application easier and more credible because the women of the Minnesota jury are diverse, by the standard of the jury system, so they can represent for the larger group of all women in
America. Women jurors stand as a reasonable and capable asset to court case. Their biological making should not limit the people or define their qualifications
Women’s equality has made huge advancements in the United States in the past decade. One of the most influential persons to the movement has been a woman named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth faced gender discrimination many times throughout her career and worked hard to ensure that discrimination based on a person’s gender would be eliminated for future generations. Ginsburg not only worked to fight for women’s equality but fought for the rights of men, as well, in order to show that equality was a human right’s issue and not just a problem that women faced. Though she faced hardships and discrimination, Ruth never stopped working and thanks to her equality is a much closer reality than it was fifty years ago. When Ruth first started her journey in law, women were practically unheard of as lawyers; now three women sit on the bench of the highest court in the nation.
In Susan Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers”, female characters face inequality in a society dominated by the opinions of their husbands. The women struggle to decide where their loyalty rests and the fate of a fellow woman. Aided by memories and their own lifestyles the women realize their ties to a woman held for murder, Minnie Foster Wright. Through a sympathetic connection these women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have greater loyalty to a fellow woman than to their husbands and even the law; this greater loyalty ultimately shows the inequality between genders.
All women were persecuted for immoral and heinous crimes during two different periods of American History. Some, like Borden, escaped her trial with all charges dropped, while others like Rebecca Nurse were sentenced to death. This story investigates in depth each trial strategy, period in American history, and woman. The bulk of Schultz’s argument revolves around gender stereotypes and society’s treatment of women. Although not each trial is relevant to the Borden mystery, they all are examples of how gender roles and stereotypes influenced Judicial rulings. Therefore, adding a greater level of validity to the argument that Borden was treated differently because she was a
Narration provided in the text “Abina and the Important Men” exercises the disadvantages Abina had due to the background or status of the jury. “To be a member of the jury, you must speak english well, you must own land or have money, and above all you must be a man.” p.57. Although the judged valued liberty the selection process that was carried out went all against the plaintiff. Abina was a slave, uneducated and suffered a language barrier, and a woman which gave her a
The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but ...
McCoy and Gray (2007) examined the impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse case. They manipulated the gender of the defendant (male or female) and the relationship (parent or stranger) to the abused child and ask the participants to be as mock jurors to rate the likelihood of guiltiness and their believability in each case. The results in McCoy and Gray (2007) study was that female defendants were less likely to be found guilty than were male defendants in an alleged child sexual assault case. While in the aspect of believability, despite of the male jurors, female jurors rated the victim as more convincing than the defendant.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly commit such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “The power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender.”1 Here Sandra exemplifies her believes the power she has on the court is not based on the fact that she is a girl, but in the power that comes from her arguments. This example of confidence resonates as people often think that woman cannot do the same thing as men, but from the day she was appointed to the Supreme Court O’Connor changed politics forever. From growing up on a ranch in El Paso, to becoming the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court, she opened so many doors for women in male-dominated professions that were thought to be unattainable.
In almost all the countries where jury system is practices, juries have been seen as the best tool for ensuring equity and empowering citizens to determine and play a role in justice. According to Abramson (1994), the only way an ordinary citizen participates in government and injects community values in...
Through the intelligent use of various concrete appeals, Elizabeth Cady Stanton brings to light the injustices against women and provokes the audience to take action and form a better nation. Her words pull the heartstrings of the audience while adding emphasis to the wrongdoings happening every day. She calls for gender equality, not just in social life, but in civic and political as well. Among a plethora of inequality, her words ring true. “The right is ours,” she asserts. “The right is ours.”
A jury trial is not to be confused with a bench trial as it often times is. While a bench trial takes places only in front of a Judge who is then tasked with coming to a verdict on his/her own, a jury trial is one that is “composed of members of the community present at the trial to act as the finder of fact” (McGuigan, 2014). The constitutional trial rights that are sanctioned throughout a jury trial is called a trial by jury. This is in the sixth amendment which says that everyone has the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury. The steps involved in creating a jury for the purpose of carrying out a jury trial will be expressly addressed in this paper. Furthermore, the purpose of this paper will be to discuss, in detail, the steps that are involved in a jury trial which include selection of the Jury, the trial, the Judge’s charge, deliberation, and the verdict.
In the 1800’s, it was illegal for women to vote. One citizen in particular, Susan B. Anthony, found that completely unjust, and cast a vote at the 1872 presidential election. Later that year, she was found guilty of committing a crime. Due to this, Anthony spoke out to the public to prove her that what she did was no crime at all. Susan B. Anthony’s speech “On Women’s Right to Vote” grabs her audience’s focus with the use of references, parallelism, and logic, making it a remarkable speech.
Jurors have to be chosen in an acceptable manner. It can not consist of just anyone. According
“His or her view could be vital in shifting the direction of the discussions. When there are ambiguities or conflicting positions within the group, he or she is the one entitled to resolve these (Ramesh, 1993).” Studies have indicated that the leader of the group is usually upper class and male, there is a lower incidence of women and minorities that are picked as the leader of the group, and it has been shown that even when the other jurors do not have any idea of their social or financial status, they will pick this type of person with subconscious cues (Ramesh,
Before the jury stands the defendant. There is overwhelming evidence in the favor of the prosecution. The verdict comes back from the jury, not guilty. Why? The defendant is a woman. In our era of equal rights and civil liberties women have made great strides in their advancement and role in society, yet it seems that gender segregates when it comes to crime. There have been countless cases where women and men have been tried for the same crime, yet when it comes to verdict and sentencing, the results don’t necessarily match. If one commits a crime one should be punished accordingly regardless of gender. In our society we seem to have two separate rules for our criminals, one for men and one for women. The key issue is are men and women treated equally by the criminal justice system. Another issue in gender biased sentencing is in its is its severity. Are women sentenced heavier for certain crimes then men.