Yvelise Moreno
FORS 2250 (01)
Palmbach
Wormser
There is always that underlying question that lingers in the back of people’s minds when a jury’s verdict has been reached: Was justice served? Justice by definition is the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals, but unfortunately in our judicial system justice has not always prevailed. Such as in many cases we've studied throughout the year. Justice in our system is based on a multitude of facets that include issues relating to forensic evidence, racial bias and one’s own moral code. Thus, we are left with a system that people really cannot live by and trust. The West Memphis Three, Friedman, the JFK assignation, Michael Peterson, and the O.J. Simpson case are all instances in which people have studied that arouse questions into the issues of justice. Looking back at each one of these cases, there is much to scrutinize and plenty of room for improvements within our system.
The West Memphis Three consisted of, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. and Jason Baldwin. All three were tried and convicted for the murders of three young boys. The prosecution made claim that the deaths were sanctioned as sacrifices for a satanic cult. Just uttering the words, “satanic cult”, set the three accused up for failure. The three boys by appearance fit the description. They wore black clothing and listened to heavy metal music, it didn't take much convincing to make people believe these allegations. The crimes took place in a small town where news travels fast. The juries’ mind was made up before the case was started. In addition, it is safe to assume that the police department had limited resources to assess the case fairly and in the manner it should ha...
... middle of paper ...
...se Freidman was the interviews from the victims. The police on the case were said to have used suggestive questioning when interviewing the victims. The victims in this situation were children. Instead of asking, “what happened,” phrases such as, “did this happen to you” were used instead. Although it is necessary for the community to feel safe, there is a line in which police cannot cross, and using suggestive questioning is not only unethical, but it can also lead to false-statements. Children are impressionable, and if an officer tells a child that something bad happened repeatedly, the child will start to think that something bad actually did happen to them or just say something bad happened to get the officers to leave them alone. Since this circumstantial evidence was used against Arnold and Jesse, it set up an unfair system in which they had to fight against.
The psychological abuse that the four suspects were exposed to made them make a wrong confession. In addition, being in an environment where the interrogation room is tight and dark increased the suspect’s anxiety. Moreover, the Frontline documentary stated that the suspects were held in custody for long hours with Robert Ford who used threatening language in order to make them confess. Not only that the suspects made a false confession, but they also told Ford different stories on how they murdered the victim. The coercive interrogatories, led Joe Dick to accept the label Ford put on him and the others. Although Ford was supposed to act just, he acted upon his self interest. Thus, he denied all facts because of fear of embarrassment of being wrong. However, after serving many years in prison, the four suspects were released to face stigmatization and labeling from the society. Indeed, this case proved that there is a malfunction in the justice system and that there’s a need for an immediate
In his article, “The Nightmare of the West Memphis Three”, Rich explores how the people of Memphis drew horrific conclusions about people based on the lifestyle they chose to practice. The article highlights the trials and tribulations faced by the accused three young teenagers. Rich does this by citing the popular documentary series “Paradise Lost” which is an in depth analysis into the lives of the accused, the victims’ families and members of the community. This paper outlines how the belief system of that time superseded the inconclusive evidence, which ultimately led to an unfair trial. By “othering” and “marginalizing” those three teens, the society and police created a scenario that aligned with their belief system at the time. Lastly, this paper highlights the influence of the media and celebrity in changing the course for these boys.
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/
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
It has been named the Trial Of the Century. Everyone’s eyes were glued to their television screens. Everyone’s jaws were dropped while listening to the radio. And the only thing they wanted to know; was O.J Simpson guilty? The talented running back turned TV personality was being tried for two murders. In the end O.J. was acquitted. It came as a shock to many, as well as a victory to others. With a handful of evidence against him, some thought there was no way he could be found not guilty. O.J. Simpson’s “dream team” was able to win the case because the prosecution did not evaluate the evidence close enough before presenting it in trial.
Welch, Ronald H., and Angulo, Carlos T. 2000. Justice on trial: racial disparities in the american criminal justice system. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Washington, DC
However, the majority of people would want answers and clarification for numerous questions, is it morally acceptable to have a jury that has no knowledge about the law decide on the culpability or innocence of the defendant? Is it fair to have the jury make this decision based on their personal beliefs or based on little or no evidence? How can the system ensure that juror’s verdict do not reflect prejudiced community standards? Is it ethical to place a defendant on death row if a decision is made solely based on discrimination? How logical is it to continue with this practice if there is proof that it is not an effective method of deterrence? What will be the consequences of completely abolishing the death penalty for good? The purpose of this paper is to analyze the death penalty history, political influence and the ethical issues to establish a possible solution to the current conflict in the criminal justice system and also in the society as a
In previous eras, anti-Black sentiment was widely acknowledged and sometimes encouraged in the United States. Black litigants have endured a long history of racist attitudes and inequality in the criminal justice system To this day, it is impossible to determine if jurors present an unbiased trial for the defendants regardless of their racial background. Although the undercurrent of racism may continue to be present in modern juries, racial prejudice in the modern legal system is certainly less flagrant as many.
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
During the scene with the police lineup, Detective Clay tells a worried and nervous Denise Moore, that she shouldn 't concern herself with testifying because Jesse Williams is most likely going to take a plea deal, and not go to trial. This caused me to realize that an officers has little to no responsibility with ensuring the innocence or guilt of an individual. Their job is to solely remove men and women, that they feel pose a threat to the rest of society, off of the street. In another scene, Detective Riley and the prosecutor for the case are seen revisiting the crime scene, the Detective emphasizes the need for the case not to go to trial, but rather for Jesse to cop a
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.