More handpicked essays just for you.
Racism in the justice system essay
Racial prejudice in the court system
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: Racism in the justice system essay
The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear. The jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color than actual evidence from the case. I wanted to avoid this disease, but it is easily spread from one person to another. It made me angry that an innocent man was convicted for something he did not even do. He was convicted because of his skin color and nothing else. When the judge asked us to leave the courtroom to make a decision, we stayed o...
To some it is very unclear whether Mayella is powerful or powerless. In the book to To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, a family tries to defend a ‘Mockingbird’ who is being charged with crimes of rape. The book ironically takes place in the mid 1930s after similar events have just recently happened relating to blacks vs. whites. While Mayella Ewell can be considered as powerful based on her race, her class and gender indicates that Mayella is powerless based on the circumstances during the mid 1930s.
It was April 29th, 1992, and “Dawn was just filtering over Los Angeles and Courtroom 890 was silent as a tomb”(Mathews 1). The Rodney King trial had taken a little over two months and the verdict had the potential to change the history of the United States indefinitely. In both the Rodney King Beating Trial and the play Twelve Angry Men, racism played a major part in the original verdict. Rodney King was definitely in the wrong on the night of the beating, but the beating he got was not necessary. The trial was moved to a community with little diversity, therefore, the police officers were acquitted. The outcome of this trial would have turned out differently if the jury had been more diverse
“I think I’ve been a great citizen” -O.J. Simpson. The O.J. Simpson trial was one of the most followed cases in history; its estimated cost for the trial was about nine million (Blohm 64). On the evening of June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered (Piombini). The trial against O.J. began on January 24, 1995 and ended on October 2, 1995 (Blohm 59). Going into the trial, O.J.’s fate had already been sealed due to the fact that nobody wanted to prosecute him because he was a football legend and an actor (Piombini). In both cases, one can see that racial prejudice may prevent a juror of this trial from voting logically and thoughtfully.
Courtroom Assignment Post 1 We have a packed courthouse here in Maycomb county today folks, for the Tom Robinson trial. Tom Robinson is on trial for rape charges. He is a black male in his late 20’s. The layer who will be defending Tom is Atticus Finch.
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
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28
In the novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee, the author, wrote about the journey of a little girl, named Scout, as she grows up. Scout’s father Atticus serves as a grand part of her aging because he teaches her many life lessons. The most significant of all the lessons and a pivotal moment in the novel occurs when Atticus tells Scout that “you never really a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them,”, which contributes to one of Scout’s intellectual changes and the theme, understanding requires time (Lee 372).
I was infuriated to hear the verdict when the jury convicted Tom Robinson. What made it even worse is the fact that it was a grueling one by one read out of each juror's verdict. I know that Tom is innocent, and so does everyone else in that room. Though it fought with what had long been considered just another human moral, a part of everyday life. I knew that day in my heart and mind that what happened to Tom was morally wrong, and inside my soul, I decided not to allow that to happen ever again. I don’t want to live my life just putting up with the same assumption that had been placed on blacks since we first had contact with them. They should be treated as equals with whites, and not judged based on the color of their skin, because that
A juror of reason would use facts and evidence; instead juror three leaned on stereotypes and prejudices to obscure the truth. He leaned on the fact that the boy was from the slums and the stereotype that he must be up to no good to convince other members that the defendant was just young trash and could not be innocent because of his upbringing. Juror three’s prejudices come from the fact that it is a case involving a young boy who is defying his father. Juror three already has a strong prejudice against children. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is so quick to judge the boy on
It all took place in the quiet Alabama town of Maycomb, which was also during the Great Depression. Scout Finch lives with her brother, Jem, and their widowed father, Atticus. Atticus is an honest lawyer, so they are doing quite well compared to everyone else during those tough times. Jem and Scout befriended a boy named Dill one summer who came to live in the neighborhood close to them. Later on, Dill become curious about a weird yet spooky house in their street called the Radley place. Mr. Nathan Radley is the owner of the house, whose brother, Arthur (nicknamed Boo), has lived there for years without adventuring outside. That fall, Scout goes to school for the first time and ended up loathing it. In the knothole of a tree on the Radley property, Scout and her brother find gifts. That summer, Dill is back and the three of them try to figure out Boo Radleys story. But their father puts a stop to it, trying to explain to them to try to see life from another person’s perspective before judging or thinking anything bad about them. The three sneak onto t...
One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the