Justice Across Racial Lines: A Comparative Study

1274 Words3 Pages

What is Justice? Justice, as said by Dictionary.com, is the administering of deserved punishment by what is just by law. Can justice be served to everyone who has committed a crime? Two serial killers from South Carolina, Donald “Pee Wee” Gaskins (a caucasian) and Henry Louis Wallace (an African American) have killed a plethora of people. Their actions have caused justice to be equally served to them, despite the color of their skin. Gaskins and Wallace have committed the same crime, justice was served fairly to them because they were sentenced the same verdict. Wallace killed nine innocent women in North Carolina from 1992 to 1994, three years later, he received the death penalty from his trial (“Where are they now? Henry Louis Wallace,” …show more content…

For over two years, Wallace’s trial was delayed because of “DNA evidence from murdered victims, and jury selection” (Montaldo). Not only was there meticulous choosing of the jury to avoid bias, but there was also careful analyzation of the evidence to assure that the trial was sound. Of January 7, 199, the jury found Wallace guilty of “nine counts of first-degree murder, each on the basis of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and under the felony murder rule” (“FindLaw’s Supreme Court of North Carolina Case and Opinions”). These nine counts of murder were decided by a open-minded, neutral jury, we know this because of the long time taken to select the jury. Gaskins argued that two of the jurors should have been dismissed because they claimed that he should be given the verdict of execution; but when inspected wholly, both jurors gave no opinion to Gaskins “guilt or innocence in the present case” (“State V. Gaskins”). Every claim that Gaskins made about the jury, the Supreme Court examined fully, which caused the jurors selected to be people who have no opinion of the case. Avoiding bias and making the trial even more honest in deciding Gaskins’ fate. Gaskins’ and Wallace’s verdict being decided by a jury rather than a judge, shows that not just one person person who made a decision about their fates, but it was many people who shared the same perception of these …show more content…

Wallace had Malcolm Ray Hunter Jr. as his defense attorney, while Gaskins had Jack Swerling (“FindLaw's Supreme Court of North Carolina Case Opinions,” Swerling). In 1982, Swerling was appointed by the justice system to defend Gaskins (Swerling). Even though Gaskins could not afford a lawyer, he was still given one to avoid the Supreme Court from hearing him claim that the trial was unfair because he had no one to defend him. Swerling has practiced “defending individuals accused of crimes” for over 40 years (“Federal Criminal Practice”). Gaskins did not just get a lawyer, he got an experienced lawyer, this is more than enough of what can be provided by the court system to help Gaskins, therefore, this seals every claim that there is not a fair trial in Gaskin’s case. Swerling claims that he has approximated defending 150 murderers (Swerling). With a lawyer with so much experience, even he could not get Gaskins out from underneath the federal law. Gaskins was not found guilty because of a bad lawyer, but rather he had a respectable upstanding lawyer to defend him. Wallace and Gaskins were both assisted in their defense and they still received the punishment that they deserved

Open Document