Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fairness in the criminal justice system
Racism in the justice system united states
Racism and the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fairness in the criminal justice system
The United States court system has seen far too many unfair court cases during the last five years. People should trust the court system and know that justice will be served depending on guilt or innocence. Distrusting the court system arises when jurors use racist comments, lack interest, and the unfair rules.
One common mistake that occurs, making a trial unfair, involves racist comments made by police officers and jury members. This occurred during a Daytona, Florida trial involving a black couple named Derrick and Eugena Powell. The lawsuit involved “suing their insurance company to cover losses from a traffic collision with an underinsured motorist”(The New York Times) when they ran into an incident involving the jury. Juror Karen Dowding notified Derrick and Eugena’s lawyer that mean comments have been stated by other jury members, also, it included an all-white jury and a black couple suing. “An all-white jury that compared blacks to chimpanzees and told racist jokes” (The New York Times). The Powell’s suit involving the insurance company involved restitution caused by a traffic collision, and they end up getting racially labeled. “The jurors frequently
…show more content…
However, potential jurors would rather spend their time concocting ideas, thereby avoiding jury duty. . Nowadays jurors would rather not deliberate about the trial. The innocence or guilt rests upon a jury who would rather not participate within the judicial decision making. This does not prove my claim when juror eight says, “it’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 1.15). Earlier within the play, some jury members just wanted a guilty verdict, incarcerating the teenager because they felt jury duty seemed inconvenient. How can trust within the court system achieve the desired goal when jury members would rather go home then decide the actual guilt or
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the
Throughout the world, in history and in present day, injustice has affected all of us. Whether it is racial, sexist, discriminatory, being left disadvantaged or worse, injustice surrounds us. Australia is a country that has been plagued by injustice since the day our British ancestors first set foot on Australian soil and claimed the land as theirs. We’ve killed off many of the Indigenous Aboriginal people, and also took Aboriginal children away from their families; this is known as the stolen generation. On the day Australia became a federation in 1901, the first Prime Minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, created the White Australia Policy. This only let people of white skin colour migrate to the country. Even though Australia was the first country to let women vote, women didn’t stand in Parliament until 1943 as many of us didn’t support female candidates, this was 40 years after they passed the law in Australian Parliament for women to stand in elections. After the events of World War Two, we have made an effort to make a stop to these issues here in Australia.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
A study of race and jury trials in Florida published last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that “conviction rates for black and white defendants are similar when there is at least some representation of blacks in the jury pool.” But all-white juries are a very different story—they convict blacks 16% more often than they convict whites (2).
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters were received broader boundaries as how to how they were to provide those opposing views. Because under the constitutional right of free speech, the government wanted to insure that broadcasting companies provided both accurate and fair information from both sides of the viewpoint.
People all around the world took interest in the trial. The one prominent reason that media affected the most was by making the trail a race issue. The reason behind this negative affect by news casters was mainly to gain publicity and ratings. Secondly, the media coverage may also affect the juror’s opinion by extensive media coverage, where media started publishing stories without verifying the facts. Obviously, when the juror goes home and watch news regarding the race problem, he/she might change their viewpoint due to the news being shown. (Linder, 2000). Charles J’ Ogletree Jr., professor at Harvard Law School, saw the media coverage as an annihilation of U.S. legal system. (Jr., 2005). When the verdict came in OJ’s favor, a divided population rose and made it a race
If they truly committed a crime, they must do the time, but death should not be the penalty for rape; furthermore, if the rule stands, it should be impartial and required to be color blind. Clearly, the negative and hateful practices against blacks as they were being murdered, due to racial discrimination and prejudicial injustice, further highlights institutional practices. With the rejections of the U.S. Supreme Court and Martinsville Circuit Court judge’s refusal to have mercy and deliver a fair trial; ultimately, demonstrates a systematic process set forth to crush blacks. Selecting prospective black jurors as a sign of balance diversity in an effort to appease blacks, was a sure sign that tokenism was on display; however, their decision to use 72 all-white male jurors throughout the six trials, prove otherwise. Hostility against the black society in Martinsville, VA exposes a Jim Crow South in full effect, and although it has reduced compared to the 1940s, it still exists; however, today it is more convert and subtle. While no one will deny Floyd’s rape; on the other hand, none should feel good about the hateful discrimination against these young black men, who had no opportunity of a fair trial and all request for one was ignored or rejected. Local and international support for these men, were immensely immeasurable; nevertheless, they fail to convince the evil minds of a whites only institution. It took
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
Mitchell and Daniel Eckstein describes a jury as a group who are chosen to perform a duty without training. Juries are not qualified for decision making because they don’t know the efficient way. Just because one person think one way everyone isn’t going to agree with that person. Mitchell and Eckstein focus on Janis’s seven antecedent conditions for groupthink. A significant risk of jury decisions being tainted by groupthink are cohesiveness, insulation, lack of a tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodical producers, homogeneity of social background, and temporarily low-self-induced by situational factors (Griffin, 2014, p. 117). As being in a group the outcome can cause problems because of groupthink. Groupthink will and can make the wrong decisions from deciding as a group. With decision-making, you will know the consequences behind your decisions. Groupthink will be completely different because juries make takes certain situations in consideration but, the judge have the last
Why? Because our country has dramatically expanded our jails and prisons and there is deep racism built into every step of the criminal legal system. Some think the criminal legal system has big problems that need to be reformed. Others think the racism in the