Friday, October 26, 2007
Social Economic Injustices
Justice for all men no matter what their economic status maybe should be a principle upheld in our judical system. The issue of capital punishment being properly administered throughout all different economic classes is a problem that plagues our justice system today. Differences in economic status can sway jury votes by the lawyers they are able to hire and the quality of investigation that is able to be done by the lawyer. The appearance of the defendant also bears a great deal of weight on a jury’s impression and willingness to be fair. A situation where a lack of money affects who can be hired can be seen in Alabama in an article titled “Questions of Death Row Justice For Poor People in Alabama” where a lawyer who did not have any experience was assigned to a capital punishment case merely because he was cheap and there was no one else. His client was eventually found guilty unfortunately due mainly to the lawyers lack of experience and necessary fund. Another case can be seen in the 1950s with Dr. Sam Sheppard who was accused of murdering his wife. He was also found guilty. Yet since he was a doctor it allowed him to appeal his guilty conviction and have proper investigation techniques done. These two examples just touch the surface on how one’s economic status affects the judgment you receive in court. Another more recent situation is the Duke Lacrosse case where the players were asssumed to be guilty because they were supposed to be rich frat boys who were drunk. Yet their innocence was later proven. In this blog I hope to address the influence of economic class on different court cases and there final outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that one’s economic status largely influences whether or not one receives a fair trial. The more money one has, the better the attorney one can hire. Wealthy people often dodge hefty sentences due to the fact that they are able to hire well-trained lawyers to represent them. People on the other spectrum of the economic spectrum, however, are not as lucky. I believe that economic status should not have the power to determine the outcome of one’s trial, and ultimately, the rest of one’s life. It is not fair that one who is actually guilty can be set free while an innocent person is found guilty due to their representation which reflects monetary wealth. This discrepancy is a major flaw in the judicial system of the United States. All trials should receive equal consideration on evidence worthy of investigation.
I also think it is unfair that juries place stereotypes on those on trial which, consequently, affects their decisions. While stereotypes certainly can be indicative of one’s participation in a crime, they certainly do not compare to definite evidence. In the case of the Duke Lacrosse Case, however, I believe more factors were involved in suspicion rather than just the stereotypes. I think that stereotypes played a larger role in the West Memphis Three case. Have there been any efforts made by the legal system to increase the implementation of objective rulings over those that are biased to ensure that all people are given equal representation? Do states vary in the quality of representation they give to those on trial?
I agree with you that a person's ability to receive a fair trial does depend significantly on their economic status. This was especially prevalent with the Duke Lacrosse Case. Not only were the three defendants condemned as guilty long before the trial even started, but the entire team and school was criticized because the boys all came from a wealthy background and Duke is an expensive private institution. I think you should also explore how the economic status of the victim may influence a case. From the high profile cases I can remember, it appears that a case generally receives more publicity when there is a wide gap between the monetary means of the defendant and the victim. Using the Duke Lacrosse case again, the media frenzy over the issue resulted in large because the boys were made out to be spoiled, rich kids and the victim a poor, struggling girl.
As for the issue of attaining legal representation, I believe it's a major flaw in the justice system that everyone acknowledges, but no one is willing to make to make any changes. The "cop-out" answer is at least the defendants are given legal counsel, but these trials determine the course of a person's life and I personally believe more should be done to provide adequate representation. The courts cannot control the types of lawyers that are willing to take on pro bono cases, but they can take more responsibility in making sure the lawyers appointed at least have some background or experience with the types of cases they take on. This flaw cannot be fixed overnight but the changes to fix it, that I know of, has been pretty much nonexistent. You might be covering this later, but I’d be really interested in knowing if there have been any attempts to assure better legal counsel.
Stereotypes plague our economy today, and have for many years past. The arguments in your post thought presented both the negative side of being rich and the negative side of being poor, which I thought was very interesting. Typically, the poor get the most attention for their inability to higher quality lawyers and the stereotypes placed on them before the evidence is even presented. Rich people normally are seen getting away with more crimes through the use of their money and influence. For instance, any celebrity today, Lindsay Lohan and Paris to name a few, commit multitudes of crime and face little to no punishment after repeated offences. However, your depiction of the “rich white frat boy” was an interesting view that is not often analyzed. The two sided issue makes us as citizens realize that each different group in America, whether race, sex, age, or socioeconomic level, all have their own stereotypes associated with them that will affect the jury’s decision. The issue here is how to rid the court room of these stereotypes of all groups, both rich and poor.
I don't understand exactly how the economics of the court system play into the individual trials. I am in agreeance that there are large and unthinkable differences in convictions of the economically different classes, and that common sense points towards economic and societal status as the culprit. The state is responsible for providing both defendant and prosecutor, correct? If this is the case, shouldn't the two rivaling attorneys be equally matched? How would the state decide the side the more experienced attorney would take? This aspect of the court system does not make sense to me. Please clarify if you can.
Post a Comment