Issues of race and justice were brought to the fore of America’s public conscience during the 1990s. No case laid bare these divisions more than the trial of the century, O J Simpson vs the State of California, which featured a black former NFL star, O J Simpson, accused of murdering his white ex-wife and her new partner. Despite extensive evidence compiled by the prosecution, the head of O J’s legal defense team, Johnnie Cochran, managed to persuade a predominantly African American jury to acquit O J through a series of arguments best summarized in his summation speech. The language Cochran deploys not only creates a complimentary tone but further aligns himself with the experiences of African Americans to gain the jury’s trust before deftly …show more content…
He starts right at the start by thundering to the jury that “You are empowered” to do justice and “You are empowered” to ensure the legal system works, creating an anaphora which emphasizes to the jury that they are in control and thus bear the responsibility to make the right choice (386). While Cochran intends here to make the jury feel culpable, his early attempt to instill culpability in the third paragraph discussing the high stakes of the case may have proved less effective than he hoped. Later in the speech, after condemning the LAPD for incompetence and fraud before then tying Mark Fuhrman to institutional racism, Cochran proceeds to proclaim that, “you and I, fighting for freedom and ideals” must continue to “expose hate” (388). Having already raised the jury’s anger against institutional racism through the Fuhrman metonymy, Cochran here uses “must,” a piece of absolute language, to place the duty of fighting institutional racism on the jury (“you”) as well as on himself (“I”). Cochran here casts the verdict not as a judgement merely on O J Simpson’s innocence but more broadly as an indictment against the prosecution, in this case by tying the prosecution to institutional racism. Cochran further extends this indictment as one against prosecutorial fraud when he refers to the Bible’s proclamation (specifically from the Book of Proverbs) that “a false witness shall not be unpunished” (388). While the Bible literally intends for God to be the one who enacts the punishment, Cochran here implies in this passive construction that the jury must serve as the punisher who must carry out the will of God by reprimanding Fuhrman, the “false witness,” and thus the prosecution. He thus exploits the Christian faith of the jury to make an acquittal a religious prerogative, heightening the
Tuner Critique Brock Allen Turner was a Stanford University student. However, after a frat party his life and another women’s life changes. Tuner was caught raping a woman who was unconscious behind a dumpster. With two witnesses present in court, Tuner was only sentenced to six months and jail.
This verdict cause moral unrest amongst many people because it begged the question of whether or not the verdict would be the same had Trayvon Martin been white and George Zimmerman been black (Ford 2013). The privilege one receives by being white is a phenomenon that is still being studied but it is common knowledge that being white is often subconsciously seen as automatically having power and success, a privilege that minorities do not have (Ford 2013). The white privilege in the Trayvon Martin trial was clear and caused an outcry for justice, resulting in the Black Lives Matter movement, and while it created this affect amongst black Americans it made many white Americans deflect their guilt. The trial and the resulting criticisms of the verdict shows how the concept of racial privilege amongst white people creates feelings of insecurity which result in using the defence mechanism of rationalization to ease their worries. Their motivational influence to feel good about themselves, which is not a desire limited to only white people, allows them to justify their status quo by derogating the less privileged.
Tom Robinson, a black man living in the time of Jim Crow Laws, is on trial for the rape of Miss Mayella Ewell. He has a good lawyer who will fight to acquit him. All of the evidence points to Mayella’s father sexual abusing her. However, despite the evidence against him, Bob Ewell is innocent and Robinson is found guilty.
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander is a book outlining and analysing the social constructs of the United States of America through the context of mechanics of the judicial system. It compares and contrasts the slavery, old Jim Crow law and post Jim Crow law eras in the means to highlight the racial discrimination against the Black and Brown community by the White elite. The author explores the court cases and legislation passed by the government to implement a national system geared to favor the White community and its effects on the imagery that has developed in the American mind set. Michelle Alexander is among many things an African-American woman. She is lawyer who represented in the Civil Rights era.
Throughout history the differences found in human beings have created multitude of problems in society. Today, problems are directed towards a person’s race and ethnicity. People of different color, race, and ethnicity are often discriminated towards, and result in the segregation of culture groups. There are many examples of this found throughout case trials since the twentieth century and beyond. The Emmett Till case, for example, demonstrates the outcome of having a jury that is all from the same ethnicity, and allows common people to understand the effect this has on the justice system.
The case highlights the problems associated with flawed eyewitness identification, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate legal representation. By addressing these issues through comprehensive reforms, such as improving eyewitness identification procedures, increasing accountability for prosecutors, and providing adequate resources for public defenders, we can work towards a more just and equitable system. The case of Lamar Johnson not only underscores the importance of rectifying individual wrongful convictions but also emphasizes the broader implications for our society and the urgent need for criminal justice
In her book, The New Jim Crow, Alexander argues the discrimination of jury selections which is an unfair of treatment for people of color under the law (The Fourth Amendment). Moreover, she provides more information about the juries and juror race-based selection in the justice system. The statistical shows that there is approximately 30 percent of black man are automatically banned or rejected from the jury service and many cases all black jurors are eliminated with the irrational explanations, such as the physical appearance, clothing style, and even marital status (Alexander, 2012). She also reports the interesting case of the two black men who was convicted of second degree robbery in a Missouri court. In addition, she emphasizes that during
As a species, humans can be vengeful and spiteful. Especially when it comes down to the justice and injustice when a wrong has been committed. For instance, on August 5, 2008, Casey Anthony was formerly charged with child neglect and slaughter of her baby. This caused quite the stir up among people who felt Ms. Anthony’s baby will not receive the justice that she deserves due to the fact there was no concrete evidence. Many believed that Casey should receive the death penalty to make up for the loss of her baby’s life because various people thought Casey was the one who allegedly killed her own child.
A district attorney named Gil Garcetti wanted to file the charges in downtown Los Angeles, instead of Santa Monica, where the murder occurred. Many people did not like this idea because the jury was made mostly of Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans; which would in turn help O.J., an African American himself. A Santa Monica jury would have been more of a caucasian based jury that might not have liked O.J(Linder). The prosecution also wanted to get a lifetime sentence in prison, rather than the death penalty for Simpson, considering this would be easier to do. At the beginning of the second arraignment on July 22, Simpson was asked how he pleaded to the two murders, and he said “Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.”
With all the evidence at hands, and witnesses like Moses’ Wright on September 23, the all-white jury deliberated for less than an hour before issuing a verdict of “not guilty,”
A Great Trash Novel Come to Life June 12th, 1994, bodies of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found stabbed to death. The bodies were in the front yard of Nicole's condo 875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood. OJ Simpson, famous football star, Nicole's ex-husband was on his way to Chicago when the bodies were found. OJ was notified the next morning with little reaction, stating he would be on the next flight back to Los Angeles. Returning home, people piled in front of his home.
(2014). The Trayvon Martin Trial - Two Comments and an Observation. The John Marshall Law Review, 47(4), 11th ser. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2086&context=lawreview.
Johnnie Cochran's closing argument during the O.J Simpson uses all three rhetorical appeals to try and convince the jury of O.J Simpson's innocence. To begin with, he uses Ethos by bring up a quote by Frederick Douglas that discusses the equality of all men and implying that if they vote O.J Simpson guilty it would be unethical because of his race. Next he appeals to pathos by using the statement "We haven't reached this goal yet, but certainly in this great county of ours, we're trying" to give a sense of both disappointment and pride first by showing that we haven't overcome discrimination yet but then that we still live in a great place that is striving.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
OJ Simpson was an idolized NFL player, actor, and broadcaster. He was loved by all and defied all racial barriers during the 1900s. People didn’t see him for the color of his skin, they saw him as an American hero. This was until June 12, 1994 when Nicole Simpson, OJ Simpson’s ex wife, as well as Ronald Goldman were found murdered. This was the beginning of the end of most Americans respect and adoration for OJ Simpson.