Tom Robinson's Justice System

The justice system is meant to uphold strong morals and promote fairness and equality for all. However, often times the justice system fails to meet those standards. Examples of this can be seen not only in fiction but in the real world every single day. From the case of Tom Robinson in the fictional 1930s Maycomb county to the courts in Washington D.C. to this day, cases of injustice run rampant. This leaves everyone wondering what the cause of these injustices are, who or what is to blame, and how it can be fixed. The justice system is still flawed in different ways just as it was in the 1930s when Tom Robinson took the stand.

There are many unfortunate souls who in modern times still fall into Tom Robinson’s shoes. One example is David

Johns Bryson who served sixteen years in an Oklahoma prison for a crime he didn’t commit (David). On September 23rd, 1982, a woman was leaving her job at a law firm in Oklahoma City when she was attacked by a man. The attacker forcefully moved into the woman’s driver’s seat and threw her into the passenger seat (David). The man began to drive away while beating the woman over the head and simultaneously forcing her to perform oral sex on him (David). The attacker later stopped his car near a ravine located in southeast Oklahoma City where he then ripped off the victim’s shirt and blindfolded her with it (David). He then proceeded to rape her vaginally and anally while repeatedly forcing her perform oral sex (David). Luckily, prior to being blindfolded, the woman was able to see that her attacker had a knife (David). This prior knowledge is what ultimately lead to her surviving the assault. The woman bit the attacker’s penis which caused him to scream and drop his weapon (David). This injury diverted the perpetrator long enough to allow the woman who escape to a nearby home and contact the authorities (David).
When the investigation and identification process began, Bryson became a victim of bad timing. Unfortunately for Bryson, on the same night the crime was committed, he went to the hospital to seek treatment for an injury to his penis (David). He called the hospital and asked for a prescription to treat his infected wound (David). The doctor who prescribed the medication overheard the hospital staff discussing how the Oklahoma City Police Department asked them for any information they may have on patients with penis injuries which lead him to come forward and report that he had treated Bryson (David). Two weeks later, Bryson was arrested for the crime (David). Bryson was wrongfully identified in a photo lineup soon after by the victim (David). When the victim identified Bryson as her attacker, the office administering the lineup informed her that he was already in custody and had an injury to his penis (David). The victim later identified Bryson as her attacker while on trial (David).
Bryson stood trial in 1983 in front of a jury in Oklahoma City (David).

An analyst for the Oklahoma City Police Department Crime Lab, known as Joyce Gilchrist, testified that hairs found on the victim’s body matched Bryson’s head and pubic hair samples (David). Semen swabs were collected from the victim’s body and on a bathrobe that the victim received soon after the crime occurred (David). Additionally, Gilchrist testified that the blood type in the sperm cells matched Bryson’s blood types (David). The victim reported that her attacker ejaculated which Gilchrist argued meant Bryson could have been the attacker (David). In addition to Gilchrist’s forensic testimony, the victim testified that he was the man who attacked and viciously raped her as well as the other witness who testified that Bryson was the man hitchhiking (David). These testimonies lead to Bryson being falsely sentenced to 85 years in prison

(David).
Bryson refused to allow this injustice occur. He relentlessly fought for appeals before ultimately being exonerated. Bryson’s first appeal was in 1985 when he argued that he had been convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimonies and prosecutorial misconduct, but his appeal was denied (David). Later in 1988, Gilchrist lied to investigators when she proclaimed that no follow-up tests could be completed because all biological evidence relating to the crime had been misplaced (David). However, in 1997, an appeals court demanded a new search for the biological evidence and the semen samples were located (David). By 1999, DNA testing had been completed and proved that the semen from the crime scene was not Bryson’s (David). With an impending new trial, Bryson was released from prison that year but it wasn’t until 2001 when prosecutors finally said they would not retry Bryson, all charges would be dropped, and that Bryson would be officially exonerated (David).
Although Bryson was caucasian, his situation still parallels that of Tom Robinson. Both men were falsely accused of rape and insufficient evidence lead to their convictions. Just as the Ewells took the stand and gave false testimonies, Bryon’s semen samples and fake eyewitnesses convinced the jury that he was a guilty man. The conviction of Tom Robinson is often seen as an act of prejudice, which it was intended to be, but in the real world it may have just been an act of profiling which is an important part of convicting people.
People often like to point fingers at the justice system, accusing them of racism and citing the Tom Robinson case as a fine example of racial inequality within the justice system.

But this is a bit of a fallacy, as the profiling process and statistics counter their case. Jurors are put through intense processes to eliminate any chances of one having a racial bias. For example, O.J. Simpson was ruled innocent partially due to the court concluding that the cop was racist. In the case of Tom Robinson, the court seemed to actually be racially bias. But in real life, that would have less likely to happen. Additionally, Tom Robinson fit the profile. Men are actually far more likely to be convicted for rape than a woman. A study conducted by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, that on average, men receive sentences that are 63% higher than women (McCormack). Starr says that that the difference between genders is far larger than previously thought because other studies haven’t included plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps and she cites that a 2009 study that showed the difference in sentencing might be due to the fact that “judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility (McCormack). In addition to gender, Tom Robinson fit the profile racially. In 2015, the number of black on white killings increased by nearly 25% with 500 white people being murdered by blacks in and only 226

blacks being killed by whites in (Cella). Out of roughly 6,000 homicides committed in 2015, 12% were black on white (Cella). 15.8% of white victims were killed by blacks whereas only 8.6% of blacks were killed by whites (Cella). When African Americans are committing such large amounts of crimes against white people, it wouldn’t be outlandish to assume that Tom Robinson could have possibly raped Mayella. More data has shown that about 93% of violent crime victims are killed by other African Americans and in 2013, African Americans committed 38% of all murders in the United States (Bandler). Between 1982 and 2008, African Americans committed 52% of all homicides while only making up 13% of the entire population (Bandler). Additionally, FBI reports show that from 2011 to 2013, 38.5% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were African American (Bandler). Surprisingly, according to Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal, “black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher” and “racial discrimination was rampant and legal.” (Bandler). With all these statistics proving that often times African Americans fit the profile, it cannot be argued that the judicial system is racially bias. These statistics prove that it is just more statistically probable that Tom Robinson would have committed the crime, along with other people in his shoes. Statistics are key components in order to profile suspects in order to help convict people who are deserving. Of course innocent people, just like Bryson, end up being wrongfully convicted sometimes but that isn’t a race issue, it’s a competence issue. Bryson was a white man who was falsely convicted of the same things Tom Robinson, an African American, was. So this isn’t just happening to the African American community. The real issues lies within the people working in the courts system who are corrupt. The only way to possibly fix the issue is to not turn a blind eye to corruption. There is no reason major evidence for life or death cases should be lost or fake eyewitnesses should be making their way to trials. Innocent men such as Bryson should not be rotting away in our jails due to corrupt people who the authorities let slide.
The corruption within the justice system is beyond out of hand. Additionally, the “race card” is continually being used as a scapegoat to explain convictions while ignoring the probability and allowing the truly unfair judicial workers to continue with their ways. Something needs to be done, but the place to start isn’t with supposed racial biases. The justice system is still flawed in different ways just as it was in the 1930s when Tom Robinson took the stand.