Dick believed it was for his “scams” he was doing on people in Nevada. Once they are in custody the officers start to question them about the night of the murder and the two “friends” turn on each other. Dick and Perry were both executed in 1965. “At the time not a soul was sleeping Holcomb heard them- four shotgun blasts that, all told, ended six human lives” (Capote 5). I now know that the other two lives that ended the night of the Clutter murder was Dick and
Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth.” Scout understands that, despite evidence of the contrary, the white jury will believe a white person instead of a black person"(Champion). Even though Tom was innocent just because he wasn 't white he was set to die the moment he stepped into the courtroom. If people saw past his skin color and actually looked at the evidence. Tom would 've been a free man and wouldn 't have had to die.
In chapters 17-24 in To Kill A Mockingbird, Jem and Scout observe their father in court defending Tom Robinson (a black man) from the accusations of the Bob Ewell (a "low grade ' ' white man). Bob Ewell accuses Tom Robinson of sexually assaulting his daughter; Mayella Ewell. Before the fate of Tom Robinson is given in the possession of the jury, both lawyers have a final attempt at convincing the jury that Tom Robinson should/shouldn 't be prosecuted. Atticus starts off his closing remarks with the fact that he believes that the case should have never come to trial and that the case "”is as simple as black and white."
Modernly, when someone commits kidnapping and murder in cold blood the charges are high. However, the weight of the punishment became lifted when the plaintiff was white. Emmett's cousin, Simeon Wright, became one of the first black men to accuse a white man of a serious crime during the trial. The text states that “Roy Bryant, and his half-brother, J. W. Milam, of killing the boy, even though the pair had admitted to the kidnapping(Jalon, one).” After the murder acquittal, the state tried to get a kidnapping charge against Bryant and Milam from a local grand jury.
In 1993, Christopher Simmons, age 17, and an accomplice plotted, and went through with, the murder of Shirley Crook. He was put on death row for this crime, but he made his way through the courts and eventually won his case (Roper v Simmons, 2005). Simmons argued that offenders under the age of eighteen should not be sentenced to death (Casebriefs). While the crime that he committed was definitely reprehensible, the death penalty for criminals under the age of eighteen are immoral and should not be used. Individuals under the age of eighteen do not have fully developed brains.
When they found him, they all died because the role of the coins was to be the antagonist that led the three to betray each other for their greed. One evidence was when the youngest of them sought to kill them through poison: “To men in such a state the Devil sends/ Thoughts of this kind, and has full permission/ To lure them on to sorrow and perdition” (Chaucer 130). Another evidence is when Death disguised himself as the coins: “No longer was it Death those fellows sought,/ For they were all so thrilled to see the sight, The florins were so beautiful and bright” (Chaucer 128). At the end of the story, the gold coins send them to death.
Readers can easily counter Jenkins original argument by employing logical reasoning: if America is responsible for juvenile criminals, it is immoral to sentence juveniles to life without parole because these “criminals” are only followers of a greater cultural phenomenon. Furthermore, this is evident in the case of Lionel Tate. Tate was only twelve years old when he allegedly murdered six year old Tiffany Eunick while mimicking a wrestling move portrayed in popular media. The American culture puts youth in a position to be criminalized for behaviors they are not entirely responsible for. It is unjust to sentence juveniles to life without parole because unlike adults, adolescents are highly influenced by our defected society.
The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote.
Another instance in which ‘you get what you give’ is experienced is when Heck Tate covers up Bob Ewell’s murder to protect Boo from the public eye. Mr. Tate was wise enough to know the punishment for killing innocent people, as experienced from Bob Ewell and Tom Robinson. Heck saw first hand what happened and how it ends for Mr. Ewell.
Cheri Jo Bates, a freshman in college, was found murdered without any evidence as to who did it. After the body was examined by the police, the station got a letter talking about a bunch of killings the sender did, one confirming Cheri Bates’ death (Olsen 3). This shows that the sender was very confident that he would not be caught any time soon, as he was perfectly fine with the police knowing that as well. Shortly after, two teenagers were killed, police investigation led to no motive or suspect. About a year later, the Zodiac shot two more teenagers, after which he called the cops mumbling, “I want to report a double murder.
Wells also found that white were rarely lynched even though they committed a crime. She found out that lynching become an entertainment for people in the South. When an African-American were about to lynched, it was announced on the newspaper for people to come and watch, even children can go and cheer for it.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
This story makes me think about OJ Simpson, he was acquitted for the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, but a year later he lost a civil suit to their parents which essentially made him guilty of the murders. But long before either jury had a chance to vote on his innocence or guilt he was found guilty in the “court” of public opinion. The public opinion vote will haunt Simpson through his entire life, people will always see him as guilty and think he got away with murder. Much like OJ, the chief will have the “court” of public opinion to contend with the rest of his career in Pamlico county.
One of these men include Dr. Jay Smith who was eventually “freed from death row.” Smith was convicted of the murder of Susan Reinert and her two children. The state appellate court held that state prosecutors failed to disclose the existence of two grains of sand found on the victims body, which might have possibly supported Smith’s claim of innocent. Smith’s conviction was set aside, he was freed from a life sentence in prison, and the state was forbidden from retrying him. What I found interesting from this story was that Smith was not innocent and yet remains on Amnesty International’s list of those exonerated from death row and was feted by the Innocence Project at Northwestern University in
Ewell would lie about the occurrence between Mayella and Tom. One of the first reasons Mr. Ewell would lie is he is the one who hurt his daughter. In the novel Atticus was trying to prove to the jury that it is possible that Mr. Ewell beat up his daughter. Scout says to herself, “… Atticus was trying to show, it seemed to me, that Mr. Ewell could have beaten up Mayella.”(Lee