Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lizzie borden on trial essay
Lizzie borden on trial essay
Lizzie borden on trial essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lizzie borden on trial essay
Arguably three of the most sensational criminal trials in American history are the Commonwealth vs. Borden, California vs. Simpson and Los Angeles vs. Rodney King. All three of these cases received unprecedented amounts of media attention and verdicts from the jury that shocked the country. In my opinion justice, especially social and moral justice, was not achieved in these trials. Social class, race and gender all had a huge impact on the jury’s decisions in each of these cases. High priced defense attorneys were able to place reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors despite the substantial amount of evidence proving the seemingly obvious guilt of Borden, Simpson and the Los Angeles Police department. This paper will focus on these criminal trials and the fact that justice or moral rightness was not achieved by the outcome of the jury verdicts.
The trial of Lizzie Borden, in June of 1893, captivated the nation. It was covered extensively in newspapers throughout the country probably, in part, because it was extremely rare for a woman to commit a horrific act such as the one she was accused of. Being from a wealthy family that outwardly seemed happy and normal, made it very difficult for people to believe that a woman with her background could be responsible for the bludgeoning death of her father Andrew Borden, a predominate member of town, and her stepmother Abby Borden. The police, however, came to the conclusion that the Borden’s murderer must have been someone within the home since the house was otherwise untouched, nothing was missing and there was no sign of any commotion. The only person having both the motive and opportunity to commit these murders was Thirty three year old Lizzie Borden.
Here are some intriguing fa...
... middle of paper ...
...ing was awarded a 3.8 million dollar settlement. This case, however, will surely haunt the LAPD indefinitely and caused further contention between an already distrusting, leery minority population and law enforcement.
In conclusion, these extraordinary criminal trials hold their place in history as some of the most palpable miscarriages of justice. In all three cases, it is almost impossible to comprehend the enormity of the evidence convicting each of the defendants. These trials prove that people’s intrinsic preconceived notions regarding the way in which certain people are apt to behave can have more of an influence on an individual’s opinion than solid evidence. I believe the defendants discussed in this paper were guilty of the crimes brought against them. It is a shame that our court system allows procedure and regulation to take precedence over justice.
Imagine being wrongfully trialled for the murders of your father and stepmother. Well, this was Lizzie Borden’s reality in the notorious 19th century case. In August, 1892, the gruesome murders of Andrew and Abby Borden took place in a small town named Fall River. Because Lizzie Borden was believed to have a lot to gain with the murders of her parents, she was the only one accused of being the murder. With this case, I believe the council was right for pleading Lizzie as innocent. The public and police tried to use theories against her in court to prove she was guilty. With the whole public against her, Lizzie still stood strong and was proven innocent for the murders.
It has been one hundred and twenty-two years since "Lizzie Borden took an axe..", in accordance to the folk rhyme, and Andrew and Abby Borden were brutally murdered in their home; but still today it remains one of America's most famous, or infamous, unsolved crimes. Although Lizzie was acquitted and no one was ever proved guilty of committing the crime; it is still the popular opinion that Lizzie was, in fact, the murderer. Not many people have in doubts in their mind about Lizzie's guilt, although there is no one alive today who could witness to what happened. The eventful day in August was followed by a very short trial. There are many reasons she could have been proven guilty but also an abundance of rationalities for her acquittal; and it makes sense that it is discussed and talked about in the year 2014.
The evidence between witnesses seeing Lizzie buy poison, washing a brown stained dress, her inconsistencies in the alibis, and her lacking of emotion all pointed to Lizzie Borden’s guilt. Jacob applied society’s outlook on an 1800’s American women as frail, feeble-minded, morally driven individuals who are incapable of a planned murder, to support her argument that Lizzie, no matter how guilty she may have been, would not be convicted of murder. Convicting Lizzie of murder meant opposing the established woman stereotypes which endangered the cohesive mindset of
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 Leopold and Loeb case quickly became one of the most well known case around the nations in the 1920’s and is still a well known case today. The Murder of a dead young wealthy boy by two young wealthy men. The Murder of little Robert Franks seemed completely random. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb knew exactly what they were doing the day they planned their murder, they just didn't know who they were going to kill. Somebody they knew that would trust them and only if they had a perfect opportunity. When that opportunity arose it was Robert Franks a boy who knew the two men and even had been to the Loeb house to play tennis became the selected victim while walking home alone that day.This case from any other once the media found how wealthy the primary suspects were. These two young boys were caught and confessed within days. The real significance to the case was the plea.. Guilty. Not only did they admit the murder and plead guilty but they decided to go straight to the judge and have no jury. Through out the years Major court cases that involve the wealthy or famous normally are put to the top of the media’s priority. The media controls and attempts to persuade our view by showing the people what they want to. This affects our perspective of what crimes shown by the media, how the law is interpreted ,and also commercial culture in all that it is.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
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).
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
On a hot morning on august 4, 1892, Mr. Andrew Borden and his wife, Abby Borden, were brutally murdered. A daughter of the victims, Lizzie Borden was arrested, tried and acquitted of the crime. “ She was a woman of spotless character and reputation, and more than that she was educated, refined and prominently connected with the work of the Christian church in the Fall River”(Gates 2).The town and the country were divided in their opinions of who could commit such horrifying murders. Many theories have been made to explain that day; the finger has been pointed in every direction- even a Chinese Sunday school student of Lizzies. To this day people are unsure as to weather or not Lizzie brutally murdered her parents.
Tom Robinson, the African American, was a man of innocence who was accused of rape, a crime that he did not commit. If the jury had realized that they were treating Tom unequally and unfairly the verdict and outcome of the trial would be utterly different. In the trials of Tom Robinson and OJ Simpson, the amendment of the bill of rights seemed to be only considered for OJ. These two trials demonstrate how race, social status, and money have an effect on the current law system of the United
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.