More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of mass incarceration on African Americans
Effects of mass incarceration on african americans
The impact of mass incarceration on African Americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The topic at hand for both of these stories is simple, but has many opinions. That being a black man was accused as a murder/murder accomplice and was put on trial for it. Both, Monster and Murder on a Sunday Morning, deal with racial issues and being judged for the color of their skin; their cases are very similar but also have some key differences. Both of the boys accusations were very severe. Steve Harmon was being tried for bring an accomplice in a murder/robbery in a convenience store. Even though there's not much information on the arrest itself it was hinted that he was found around the neighborhood and was trying to film for his class when he was arrested .Whereas, Brenton Butler was tried as the killer of an older tourist that was white. Butler was outside by his house when police spotted him, they took him in for questioning just because the description of the murderer was that he was African American. Once arrested they were both introduced to the people who could change their fate in the courtroom. …show more content…
While in jail he had no one to support him or keep him level except for his journal. His parents didn't visit and Kathy O’Brien, his defense attorney, wasn’t believing in Steve ad as only there to do her job. On the contrary, in Murder on a Sunday Monday, Brenton Butler had a huge amount of support from his parents and from his defenders: Patrick McGuiness and Anne Finnell. Similarly, both were treated without respect from people around them. The case came to close for both of the boys after everyone was done after defending their side on the
The docudrama portrays Steven Avery as a man who has had trouble with law enforcement, but also a man police officers blame and target when something bad happens. It also portrays his family as upright, relatable people. The Avery’s run a family business, live near each other, and miss, visit and call one another often. The Avery’s have been torn apart, not once, but twice. Steven’s parents, who are his biggest familial supporters, are constantly interviewed to see how they are coping with their son and grandson in jail. While they remain hopeful most of the time, it is obvious that they are hurting, too. In episode 10, “Fighting for their Lives,” Allen Avery, Steven’s father, says the Wisconsin justice system, “ruined us. They ruined our business.” Steven’s mother, Dolores says, “This one is worse than the first one. There is no family here anymore.” The series shows the aging couple lives alone on their plot of land, heartbroken, but hopeful, just like any parent would be in their situation. Also in “Fighting for their Lives,” Avery’s attorney Dean Strang emotionally shares his devastation that Wisconsin has done this to Avery a second time by saying, “There’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again, for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life
The Murderers Are Among Us, directed by Wolfe Gang Staudte, is the first postwar film. The film takes place in Berlin right after the war. Susan Wallner, a young women who has returned from a concentration camp, goes to her old apartment to find Hans Mertens living there. Hans took up there after returning home from war and finding out his house was destroyed. Hans would not leave, even after Susan returned home. Later on in the film we find out Hans was a former surgeon but can no longer deal with human suffering because of his traumatic experience in war. We find out about this traumatic experience when Ferdinand Bruckner comes into the film. Bruckner, Hans’ former captain, was responsible for killing hundreds
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
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
In May of 2000, Mary Stephens was shot to death while on in Jacksonville, Florida in what was presumed to be a robbery attempt. With her at the time was her husband, James Stephens who was the sole eyewitness to the crime. He gave a description of the assailant to the first uniformed officer on the scene. This description would later be repeated in court as follows: Black male, shorts that went down to the knees, a dark shirt with no logo, and hat with "narrow brim". Mr Stephens also testified that the assalient told his wife to give him her pocketbook. Within a few hours of the crime 15 year old Brenton Butler was spotted walking down the street and stopped by a police officer because he was a match for the description given by James Stephens. Butler willingly answered questions from detectives and got into a police car. Butler was then identified by Mr. Stephens and subsequently arrested and charged.
A jury of all white men sentenced the nine boys to death except the youngest. The first trial consisted of the two oldest boys, Clarence Norris and Charlie Weems. The main witness was the oldest girl named Victoria Price. Victoria won over the courtroom with her wise cracks and gusto. It took the jury only two hours to decide the fate of these two boys, death. In the second trial, Haywood Patterson was sentenced to death. In the third trial, Olin Montgomery, Andy Wright, Eugene Williams, Willie Roberson, and Ozzie Powell, were convicted and sentenced to death. “The most shameful of the cases was left to last.” (Famous American Trials). 14 year old Roy Wright, was held at the mercy of the white authorities. “He deserved no lenience on account of his youth.” (Famous American Trials). The judge declared a mistrial and he was returned to jail to await another trial. Within three days’ time, eight boys were tried, convicted, and sentenced to
My second reason of why they are both the same is because of the people accused for committing the crime. For example, in Monster the one accused was a sixteen year old boy, and in “Murder on a Sunday Morning” the one accused was also a sixteen year old boy. Lastly, the novel and the documentary are similar because racism plays a big part in both. For example, both boys are judged quickly because of their color, and people instantly thought they were guilty. Also in both the novel and documentary, the police officers, and detectives are rude to the boys. In the documentary, one of the officers called Brenton the N word, say that it was people like him the made him mad. I strongly think that the novel and documentary are more similar then different because of the crime committed, the characters, and for the role racism
The most obvious of the similarities are the environments of the pieces. Both To Kill a Mockingbird and “Report on the Scottsboro, Ala. Case.” take place in the 1930’s in a greatly excluded time. It is shown through the fact both cases are against black men. At this time period black people, and even more, black men were look at as the antagonists of the world. The townspeople in To Kill a Mockingbird seem like they would be nice, but as soon a black person is called into question they give them the second degree. This characterization is just like the people in the courtroom in the “Report on the Scottsboro, Ala. Case.” The report says, “The crowed was “curious not furious.”” Coming into the case that just wanted to
Both cases have similar charges. Both of the men are young and black and are accused of murder while attempting to rob the victims. Both crimes were committed in a public place with a witness point to the jury they both should be pleaded guilty. An example from the novel, Monster the crime took place at a drugstore. In the documentary, “Murder on A Sunday Morning,” the crime took place at a motel on an early Sunday morning.
Describing the night of the killings, after 10 p.m. on Aug. 20, 1989, Erik says that he and Lyle got into an argument with their parents at their Beverly Hills, California, home. The fight then escalated, he claims. “I was in the foyer, Lyle was coming out of the den and my mom was following him and saying, ‘You’re not going out,’ and Lyle said, ‘Why?’ And my mom said, ‘Because I said so,’ and then my dad came out and he told my mom to shut up. He looked at Lyle and said, ‘You’re not going out.’ He told me to go to my room and he told me he would be there in a minute.”
A Time to Kill is a story based primarily on justice. The story is based around the trial of a black man named Carl Lee Hailey, who is accused of murdering two unarmed white men in the middle of a courthouse. To Kill a Mockingbird is a story about many themes including a child's innocent perception of the world, a man's shame and the lengths to which he will go to regain his pride, and at the root of it all is a matter of justice. To Kill a Mockingbird features a trial in which a black man named Tom Robinson is accused of raping and beating a white woman. The main connection between the stories is a matter of racial prejudice. Neither of these trials would have even occ...
One person both sides couldn't find any information on was Nicholas Easter. He seemed rather neutral which is good for both sides but not being able to find out his past made them nervous. Nicholas had covered his tracks rather well along with Marlee his accomplice. The two of them wanted Nicholas on that jury for personal as well as monetary reasons. Their hard work was paid off because Nicholas along with eleven other people was selected as the jurors.
In both of Edgar Allan Poe’s writings, “The Murders at the Rue Morgue” and “The Tell Tale Heart” as the reader I am able to identify possible roles of crime and comfort in each piece. As we discussed in lecture, crime can be breaking the law, an act against another that is hurtful and against human morals, punishable by law, victimizing and much more. In each reading we find our self deeply immersed in the story this gives me the reader a clearer understanding into each tragedy by having the opportunity to clearly define the role of crime and comfort in each reading.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.