How do we receive justice in the U.S ? First what is Justice, is it “fairness or moral rightness. a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal”(dictionary.com). But do we the people really get a fair trial? Do the people who work for the system and took an oath really care about moral rightness? “One problem is that attorneys, judges and legislators often get caught up more in procedure than in achieving justice for all”(dictionary.com). The justice system has consistently failed underprivileged/poor defendants. In the movie Twelve Angry Men there was a young boy put on trial and accused of murdering his father, his fate was death if pronounced …show more content…
Most public defenders have very busy schedules and maybe over 50 cases to deal with so the defendant is not priority really. According to The Bronx Defenders “A state law limited the number of caseloads New York City public defenders could take on. 400 misdemeanors or 150 felonies a year. James told The Indypendent that when the law was passed, each LAS attorney averaged 632 cases a year (Ibarra)”. What this means is that the lawyer you were appointed doesn 't really have time to break down your case and try to get you off but maybe get you a good plea deal. In the movie Twelve Angry Men juror number 8 wasn 't completely sure if the boy did it or not so he voted not guilty. The two witnesses that was present to the crime had strong statements. As a lawyer your job is to discredit the witness but do to the public defendants lack of skill he let the jury hear the testimonials of the witnesses and put his client 's life in the jury 's hands. Ultimately juror number eight did the lawyers job for the kid and got him off. All in all most public defenders don’t really go deep into the case to see if their clients can win due to their overload of cases. The court appoints a lot of cases to public defenders, and ultimately overwhelms the lawyer and they fail to do their job correctly which puts a lot of underprivileged/poor or even innocent people in …show more content…
Do to common knowledge most black and hispanic people are unable to afford their own lawyer. Which is why one in three black men will go to prison and one and six latino men. “So does the law protect us from racial discrimination or does hurt us for our race ? The undebatable and undeniable answer to the basic question of equal access to justice and fairness in the criminal justice system to all American citizens is a resounding "No." A simple dance through recent history depicts, in the most lucent fashion, an unfortunate and quite lengthy landscape of unequaled access to justice and abject unfairness in the criminal justice system as it applies to a substantial segment of the American population. However, there are many examples of justifiable equity in judicial discretion, or as some would call it, judicial balance. Our high court has, on occasion, actually reversed itself and halted a system of wrongdoing, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v.Board of Education of Topeka (Durant III).” It is not a thought that it is a fact that race plays a major role in the courtroom from the prosecutor 's speech when on the stand to the jury 's decisions. In the movie Twelve Angry Men one of the jurors said we can 't trust them people saying the boy “isn 't like them because their white and the boy is latino”. It might not be said out loud but their are a lot of people serving the jury
Just Mercy’s Bryan Stevenson exposes some of these disparities woven around his presentation of the Walter McMillian case, and the overrepresentation of African-American men in our criminal justice system. His accounts of actors in the criminal justice system such as Judge Robert E. Lee and the D.A. Tom Chapman who refused to open up the case or provide support regardless of the overwhelmingly amount of inconsistencies found in the case. The fact that there were instances where policemen paid people off to testify falsely against McMillian others on death row significantly supports this perpetuation of racism. For many of the people of color featured in Stevenson’s book, the justice system was unfair to them wrongfully or excessively punishing them for crimes both violent and nonviolent compared to their white counterparts. Racism towards those of color has caused a “lack of concern and responsiveness by police, prosecutors, and victims’ services providers” and ultimately leads to the mass incarceration of this population (Stevenson, 2014, p. 141). Moreover the lack of diversity within the jury system and those in power plays into the already existing racism. African-American men are quickly becoming disenfranchised in our country through such racist biases leading to over 1/3 of this population “missing” from the overall American population because they are within the criminal justice
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.
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Welch, Kelly. 2007. “Black Criminal Stereotypes and Racial Profiling.” Journal of Contemporary Justice 23(3): 276-288 also talks about the discrimination within the courtroom, in the court it has been shown that the prosecutors when fighting a case against the defendant who’s client is Black use their race as an argument to win the case. They try to show how Black people are prone to be violent due to racial factors and therefore should be sentenced harshly. Given the history, unfortunately this argument sets in well and therefore leads to sentencing and prison time for the Black
racial minorities were tried in white courtrooms by white juries. Class and race are challenging
Extensive research has been conducted in different regions of the United States and each study has revealed the same thing, a person’s color affected the decisions of the law enforcement personnel involved and how their case progressed through the system. Racism is present in the criminal justice system of the United States. It should not be assumed that all practitioners within the criminal justice system display racial bias. However, the sentencing guidelines and punishments handed down by the courts show that the system itself may be set up in such a way that minorities are disproportionately affected by these guidelines and thus further the belief that the system as a whole displays racism and not necessarily those working in
Firstly, a person’s race comes into play too often. People of color are more likely to entangle themselves in the justice system. Consider that the arrest rate and disparity of African American and Hispanic people are much higher. Police “stops and searches” are proof of racial profiling. A study conducted in Connecticut proved the racial disparity by showing that more people of specific races are pulled over during the day, but not at night because they cannot be seen. Also, a glimpse at the people serving time provides a vivid example of the racial inequalities seen throughout legal situations. When the Brown vs Board of Education case was won, there was around 100,000 African Americans in jail and currently there are at least 800,00 in prison. Black men are six times more likely to get incarcerated as white men and Hispanics are 2.3 times more likely (“18 Examples of”). Additionally, before the sentencing even begins these individuals are at a disadvantage. These communities have worse odds of making bail, in contrast to white defendants. This implies that they include the greater parts of those who are imprisoned before their trial even begins, placing even the innocent in jail for longer than needed. Overall, a person’s race or skin color should not produce a lower quality of
In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
Unequal treatment of minorities characterizes every stage of the process. This the price that is paid in order to keep this false fallacy of justice while African and Hispanic Americans, and other minority groups, are victimized by disproportionate targeting and unfair treatment by police and other law enforcement officials; by racially skewed charging and plea bargaining decisions of prosecutors; by discriminatory sentencing practices; and by the failure of judges, elected officials and other criminal justice policy makers to redress the inequities that become more glaring every
When a person of color is being sentenced the unjustness of sentencing is blatantly shown such as in the article Race Sentencing and Testimony which stated, “ These scholars conclude that black male arrestees “face significantly more severe charges conditional on arrest offense and other observed characteristics” and attribute this primarily to prosecution charging decisions” (Mauer 4). This piece of writing explains that for no other reason than race do these people get convicted far more significantly than others who have the same charge but are white, which continues as far as giving a person of color the max sentence that they can have on a certain charge just for the color of their skin. The justice system has turned into the opposite of what it claims to be and continues to grow as a racist overseer, bashing down on those that they believe should be punished as harshly as possible simply for the color of their skin. The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but are being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years
Society subscribes to a value system to focus on the concepts of justice and equality. Justice which is used in a legal system can help determine whether an individual’s act was wrong or right and it helps other make a fair judgment among individuals equally. George Cole, Christopher Smith and Christina DeJong (1984) discuss how individuals will go through the process of the justice system to determine whether they are found guilty or not guilty, in their book, “Criminal Justice in America.” They clarify that less punishment can be offered to middle or upper class by a systematic bias that works to the disadvantage of the poor. When comparing the treatment of blacks and Latinos to whites, black Americans and Latinos are disproportionately poor
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
Today’s justice system is broken and flawed, with a history of falsely convicting innocent people due to a variety of things, including eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic testing, and even racial bias on the jury. Many wrongful convictions happen as a result of a combination of these things, and other causes can contribute in each individual case (“causes”). Countless people throughout history have been punished for crimes they did not commit, and with recent advancements in DNA testing bringing about hundreds of exonerations of the wrongfully convicted, one has to wonder how many innocents have languished in prisons throughout history. With all the flaws and potential for error in our courtrooms today, justice can not be brought about by our current system; in order to repair it, we need governmental reform to promote true equity and prevent future miscarriages of justice.
Have you ever thought about the world you live in, on how its structure for humans in America? The only society who system and laws were establish by the founding fathers over a century ago. Throughout the century many laws have change but many of the amendments that we follow we interpret through the criminal justice system. As today the laws that are enforced by the government, the media, and political correctness play a major role and also impact the criminal justice system.