But, they had to start somewhere… • However, despite both Atticus and Rosser’s efforts, Tom Robinson and Leo Frank were both found guilty. • In jail , Leo Frank had his throat slashed by a fellow prisoner, but was able to survive. However, on August 15, 1915, “the best citizens” of Mary Phagan’s hometown stormed the jail, kidnapped him, and lynched him the next morning. The civilians stood and posed proudly after performing such a heinous crime.
Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision.
Dear Members of the Jury, I am writing you this letter to tell to you that Tom Robinson should be proven not guilty. This case would have never happened if the truth would have been told and it wasn’t a case between black and white. There are many ways that Robinson is not guilty. One of these reasons that Tom Robinson is not guilty is that if you listened to the Sheriff 's testimony he stumbled frequently and when he said something and then Atticus would say something different he would agree with Atticus. Tom Robinson is a very polite man with great manners, which you could take into consideration that he wouldn’t dare hurt this woman in this kind of manner.
Soon enough these black young men were taken to trial in court for being accused of rape. The trial was 1-3 days for a total of 9 people, which proves that people think less of black people than whites because white trials were usually longer than a few days (Johnson). During the trials a doctor said there was no evidence of rape on either of the two women, but he never went to court to have a say and help out these young men (Johnson). At the trials, no one seemed to care about the black men’s side of the story even if the judge knew the crime never happened. Anderson stated, “One lawyer was seeing butterflies and one was trying to catch butterflies.”
In the novel, it showed how people didn’t wait for a jury to decide the solution to their problems. Instead they went out and handled it themselves. In this case, a group of people came together to kill Tom Robinson who was being accused of rape by Mayella Ewell. The development of lynch mobs originated from the Ku Klux Klan so it was still quite frequent during this time. They fortunately didn’t go through with it, thanks to Atticus and his children.
After the final judgement of the trial the city sheriff’s input about the trials outcome was, “Im not a very good man, sir, but I am sheriff of Maycomb County. Lived in this town all my life an I’m going on forty -three years old. Know everything that’s happened here since before I was born. There’s a black boy dead for no reason and the man responsible for its dead. Let the dead bury the dead, this time Mr. Finch let the dead bury the dead.”
There is no skirting around the terrible event that happened against Thompson. She deserved justice, but the system failed her, it also failed Ronald Cotton. When Thompson was hesitant picking Cotton, saying the suspect was either numbers 4 or 5, then for whatever reason settled on number 5, she decided she was certain he was the man who raped her. This was all the police needed to have Cotton put on trial, it seems that whomever Thompson chose would be the one to serve time. Detective Gauld used composites he assembled (based off Thompson’s word) to recreate the rapist.
Plessy v. Ferguson had upheld segregation of our society. This case was in Louisiana a southern state, which had enacted a Jim Crow law the Separate Car Act which made whites and blacks have to ride in separate trains. Mr. Plessy was a mixed race man who was mostly white and was arrested for sitting in the all white train and refusing to move. This happened in 1892 and Plessy was brought to Criminal Court in New Orleans, where Judge Ferguson had upheld the law. Plessy challenged this ruling and was brought to the supreme court of the United States. Plessy argued that this law was unconstitutional because this type of racial segregation was against the 14th and 13th amendment since it stigmatized blacks and made them inferior.
In the novel A Lesson Before Dying, written by Ernest J. Gaines in 1993, Grant Higgins struggles with the idea of criminal justice in the south during the 1940s. During this time in Bayonne, LA African Americans did not receive the same justice as whites. In this quotation one can see the discrimination, “Twelve white men say a black man must die, and another white man sets the date and time without consulting one black person. Justice?” (Gaines 157).
Plessy V. Ferguson Case of Plessy v. Ferguson is the case talking about the discrimination that happen between the black race and white race. It starts from Plessy a person who have mix race (not naturally white and not naturally black). Plessy think that in US they abolish the segregation happen in their country but unfortunately people in US still discriminate people base on the race that they have. To check the US especially Lousiana law, he try to buy railway first class ticket which is this ticket is only use for white people only. Since Pressy is mix race so Lousiana citizen think that he is one of black race not white race then he suppose to sit base on the black railway coach not in the first class railway coach.
Some portion of this was unexpected: the grim and generally plugged 1893 torment consuming of Henry Smith before a get together of thousands at Paris excited the newborn child against lynching development energetically. In a more positive vein, Texas local Jessie Daniel Ames of Georgetown established and filled in as leader of the Relationship of Southern Ladies for the Anticipation of Lynching, the best hostile to lynching bunch in the nation. The lawmaking body passed a hostile to lynching law in 1897, governors got out the Texas Volunteer Monitor to help safeguard detainees on various events, and nearby officers some of the time made a huge effort to ensure their
Disclosed here is the true account of the slaying in Mississippi of a Negro youth named Emmett Till. Last September in Sumner, Miss., a petit jury found the youth's admitted abductors not guilty of murder. In November, in Greenwood, a grand jury declined to indict them for kidnapping. Of the murder trial, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said: "Evidence necessary for convicting on a murder charge was lacking."
The Scottsboro Trials and To Kill a Mockingbird In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the famous father named Atticus says “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… until you climb into his skin and walk around in it (Judith 2). This quote is said during a time of intense racism. “Not long after Obama took office, the National Urban League released its 2009 State of Black America report. The findings showed that racial inequities continued in employment, housing, health care, education, criminal justice, and other areas” (Buckley 1). This essay will primarily focus on the criminal justice area of this when discussing the Scottsboro trials and comparing the trials to the famous novel To Kill a Mockingbird.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment. The case was wrapped up
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution.