"Guilty...guilty...guilty...guilty."
This trial made me the angriest I've been in TKAM, I practically had steam coming out of my ears! Even though the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach told me this was going to happen, there was still that naive sliver of hope that the trial would have a happy ending and justice would win. In the trial, Bob Ewell first stated his recollection of how the events went from his POV, but his explanation is riddled with holes made from sharp questions from Atticus. We find out that Bob is left handed, making it perfect for him to slap Mayella across the right side of her face. After Bob has insulted his way out of the witness seat, we get an account of the story from Mayella but like her father's story, it's filled with flaws and holes. Mayella pulls the pity card and bursts into tears after saying Tom choked her and refuses to answer more questions. I wanted to slap this girl across the face so bad, how could you lie so shamelessly? She is removed for the testimony area and Tom is sent up. As he stands, we see that he's crippled and that his left arm is much shorter than his left. This should've made it obvious that Bob and Mayella were lying, but I guess white supremacy always wins over the black truth. He tells his story, completely contradicting Mayella and Bob, and we are sent to wait for what should've been an obvious verdict. The Judge counts the votes, saying 'guilty' over and over again, causing my heart to boil with rage. Even in the current day, we haven't fixed the prejudice that we have against blacks, shown in multiple trials and convictions of blacks, as well as racial discrimination.
So, the big problem here is that even though we've improved, we're still not a completely unbiased, unracist nation and still discriminate. Maybe it's time to completely get rid of that.
Until Next Time!
-Nicole
Racial Inequality
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Blast from the past
"There's something in our world that makes men lose their heads—they couldn't be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a black man's, the white man always wins. They're ugly, but those are the facts of life. […]"The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box." (pg.38-40)
This quote really speaks out to me because throughout history there has been and will always be racial discrimination and injustice, unfortunately.And you would think that even with people having there prejudices that they would at least have the decency and respect to allow everyone a say so without wrongly being accused of something he or she didn't do. This world is very corrupt, an innocent black male could be walking down the street and could get "accidentally" accused and killed for just being present and black at that very moment.While a white man could go shoot up some place get arrested but gets treated with care and with grace.There's white privilege and sadly there will always be.
Local Relations
This news story was of a police who went to far with what he did he shot a black man excessively basically police brutality. What wrong was using the force that he did and shooting and killing him. What should have happened was the police should have sense to not do something like that.The problem this shows is that these white attorneys shot 5 black lives matter protesters. Only 4 of 5 survived from the shots . This is just plainly wrong the attorneys are charged with murder.
Connections In Life
In the book there was a quote that really appealed to me it was ''theres something in our world that makes men lose their heads they couldnt be fair if they tried.'' ''In our courts when its a white word aginst a black mans the white mans word the white man always wins.'' ''theyre ugly but those are the facts of life.'' This connect to me in my life how sometimes when getting in trouble sometimes the more who was whiter in color would get the advantage and come winning were i would lose but he would know that he was wrong.
Blog 4
In Tom Robinsons trial, Atticus defended Tom with great evidence to support him and help prove his innocence. The key thing that Atticus pointed out was that Tom couldn't have punched or strangled Mayella with his left arm because it was hurt in an accident. All the evidence Atticus said showed that he was innocent. Even Mayellas and her fathers testimonies didn't seem to go together at some points of their stories.
In the end the jury says that Tom Robinson is guilty. It bugs me how the jury found Tom guilty when all the evidence showed he was innocent for something he didn't do. I guess the jury was racist toward Tom because he was a black man accused of hurting a white woman. What should have happened was the jury said that Tom Robinson was innocent of the crimes against him.
In the end the jury says that Tom Robinson is guilty. It bugs me how the jury found Tom guilty when all the evidence showed he was innocent for something he didn't do. I guess the jury was racist toward Tom because he was a black man accused of hurting a white woman. What should have happened was the jury said that Tom Robinson was innocent of the crimes against him.
Racist Jury?
One of the reasons Tom Robinson was found guilty was because of the racially prejudiced jury. All white, of course they didn't want to prove him innocent. This type of prejudice in the court system is not just something that Harper Lee made up. It still happens today.
Turns out, lawyers will choose their jury by the color of their skin. On Nov. 2, there was a re-trial for an old case from 1987. A black teen was charged for murdering an elderly white woman. The jury for the re-trial was chosen simply by the color of the potential jurors' skin tone. Apparently, this was definitely not the first or last time. It happens all the time!
Found in prosecutor's notes was a list of the jurors, with a note next to their name. Either "W" (meaning white), "B" (meaning black), or "B#1" (meaning black and definitely not a good candidate). I don't understand how this is fair, or even legal. Turns out that way back in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that jurors could not be taken of the stand on the basis of their race or gender. THEN WHY ARE WE BREAKING THE RULES?
If a prosecutor is asked why they are removing a certain person from the jury, they have 2 options: give a non-racial reason, or use a peremptory challenge (meaning they don't have to explain themselves). This needs to not be allowed, because while it still is in place, trials such as the Tom Robinson case or the Nov. 2 case will never be justly charged.
Turns out, lawyers will choose their jury by the color of their skin. On Nov. 2, there was a re-trial for an old case from 1987. A black teen was charged for murdering an elderly white woman. The jury for the re-trial was chosen simply by the color of the potential jurors' skin tone. Apparently, this was definitely not the first or last time. It happens all the time!
Found in prosecutor's notes was a list of the jurors, with a note next to their name. Either "W" (meaning white), "B" (meaning black), or "B#1" (meaning black and definitely not a good candidate). I don't understand how this is fair, or even legal. Turns out that way back in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that jurors could not be taken of the stand on the basis of their race or gender. THEN WHY ARE WE BREAKING THE RULES?
If a prosecutor is asked why they are removing a certain person from the jury, they have 2 options: give a non-racial reason, or use a peremptory challenge (meaning they don't have to explain themselves). This needs to not be allowed, because while it still is in place, trials such as the Tom Robinson case or the Nov. 2 case will never be justly charged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)