Tom Robinson was a civilized man who was trying to get home from work one day,and Mayella Ewell ruined that for him. In the unfair case of Tom Robinson he was accused of raping a girl he never found interest in.The case had a ruling set before it even started,because he was a black man. There was so much evidence that Mayella wasn't raped by Tom Robinson,some of the evidence were Tom's physical handicap from a cotton gin as well as his left arm being twelve inches shorter than his right and was not able to use his left arm.His color works againt him,the jury decides to believe mayella instead of Tom. Therefore, he was convicted and sent to jail.…
During the trial of Tom Robinson, he encounters false accusations on behalf of the Ewell family. “Miss.Mayella...you’ve testified that the defendant hit you, grabbed you by the neck, and took advantage of you.” This quotations explains the false accusations Mayella Ewell made up to save her father Robert Ewell from the jury.Mayella Ewell obviously thought if she traps a black man, which is already disrespected by society instead of her father the jury will take her side either way.This act of pleading innocence was wrong of Mayella because she took advantage of an innocent man that has a family of his own to be there for. Mayella’s loneliness and isolation from the rest of Maycomb county lead her to take such actions. But she was smart enough…
"I do not want a verdict based on racial prejudice or a religious creed. I want a verdict based on the merits of this case. On that evidence, gentlemen, there can be but one verdict, and that verdict is death-- death in the electric chair for raping Victoria Price. . . . "…
Those that have not been exposed to a jury trial might be rather shocked how to process works, not only in criminal matters but also in civil matters as in the case…
The case of James Hardy Vaux serves as a prime example of the inefficiency and weakness in the British justice system, especially in terms of punishment. It is significant in highlighting how ineffective trials were at convicting criminals. Over his criminal career, he was trialled 4 times, and eventually transported for life. His 3rd trial is perhaps the most significant in providing an outlook on the inefficiency of the trialling system. Vaux had stolen a silver snuff box out of the pocket of a gentleman in a theatre. After leaving it with the landlady of a public house to have it refilled, he was caught picking it up again, along with the scissors he used to slit the gentleman’s pocket in his possession. Despite the large amount of evidence against him, he was found not guilty by the jury, thanks to the tactics he employed to avoid a sentence. He dressed very expensively, and acted gentlemanly, and paid for the best lawyer he could find. He swayed the jury with his demeanour. Such was common at this time, for a criminal to sway the public, bribe witnesses and even threaten the prosecutor. After 1000 trials at the Old Bailey in 1793, 562 were…
There just seems to be a general lack of relevant background information in this case. There are only the two witnesses, and even their stories have some doubt surrounding them. Furthermore, none of the jurors (as far as we know) have any significant background in dealing with these matters.…
Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal representation and controversial use of defences prove the criminal trial process ineffective.…
Undoubtedly these two trials have many similarities despite one of the trials being mainly a focal point for achievement in the literary world. An identical example between these trials are the historical culture in abundance with many of the families included in the trial, an example being the Ewells compare to be utterly consistent with the two young prosecutors in the way they live their life. Another of these many similarities includes the bizarre assumption by the jury that the accused were already virtually guilty before the trial had even begun due to the mainstream’s coarse view of African Americans and how African Americans are nothing better than a common house animal, punished at the dominant being’s will. This point is shown, beyond doubt, when one of the women prosecuting the Scottsboro Boys, Ruby Bates admits that neither herself nor her friend Victoria Price were every raped in anyway by any of the nine accused African Americans. Even after this incriminating confession, the series of trials continue .…
There wasn’t any tested proof of the rape, no evidence that he did in fact was a rapist. The trail knew it, they all did. They all knew the trail was unfair, they all knew that she was lying. Yet, they still went through with it, convicting Tom of raping her, and assaulting her. They still hanged him for a crime he didn’t commit. Atticus tried his best, but the townspeople didn’t like supporting African Americans, didn’t like them at all (proof :) Soon as the trail started people saw Tom Robinson guilty, not even hearing his side at 1st. Only 1st listening the ‘victims’ side, only to see the color of his skin to immediately think he was guilty of the crime. When Atticus finally served his side of the case and showing the jury Tom's side of the case, finally giving him the chance to tell the people what really happened. They still judge him as a guilty African American man with no conscious rather than an innocent man who was wrongfully…
The results of the trial clearly point out one thing. When the members of the jury say “guilty” the inequality is prominent. Why? Although Atticus clearly defines evidence in favor of Tom, the jury was still inflicted with “Maycomb’s disease.” The evidence presented clearly said that Tom Robinson, a cripple, couldn’t have strangled Mayela, and that he was innocent. The accusers (?), Bob and Mayela, Bob especially,…
The second reason why I believe Thomas is innocent is because his skin color clearly affected the jury’s decision. Atticus and his children had no trouble believing Thomas’s story…
The Scottsboro trials occurred in the 1930s and had nine African American boys aging from thirteen to seventeen and they were accused of raping two girls on a train. Eight of the nine boys were sentenced to death and one of them was too young for the death penalty so he was sentenced to life in prison. There was a lot of evidence that pointed to them being innocent. Like the two girls were examined by a doctor and he found no evidence of rape, but he was not called to court, but he told a lot of people. Also they found out the girls were prostitutes and they were crossing a border illegally so they covered it up saying they were raped. Later on, during the case one of the girls admitted that she was never raped. Also the boys were not in the same train cart as the girls (Johnson). The Scottsboro trials are a lot like Tom Robinson’s trial in To Kill a Mockingbird. The cases are a lot alike, because they both took place during the Great Depression and they both are rape cases. Also the towns took the white person’s side instead of the African Americans sides (Johnson). That is why the Scottsboro trials are like the trials in To Kill a…
Mississippi politicians and newspapers condemned the murderers and promised justice. However, Mississippians became more defensive as the weeks passed. The Press attacked them with harsh judgment of racial violence in the South. The highly publicized trial of the two men was charged with racial tension. African-American politicians and reporters from the North were treated horribly and were segregated in the courtroom. The prosecution was poorly prepared, and the substance of the defense was the shocking claim that Till was not actually dead.…
Black people are victims of injustice, just like Tom Robinson. Tom Robinson is a victim of injustice because even though he is innocent, he is found guilty of raping Mayella Ewell. The jury agrees and decides to make the black man guilty of the rape. “I shut my eyes. Judge Taylor was polling the jury: ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.’ I peeked at Jem, his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulders jerked as if each “guilty” was a separate stab between them” (Lee 214). Atticus does his best to defend Tom, but it was not enough to win the trial. The jury may have chosen the Ewells to win because Tom Robinson was a negro. Tom Robinson was shot and killed in jail, while trying to escape because he should not have been there in the first…
It is fair to be tried in both civil and criminal court for the same alleged actions because they deal with different aspects of the crime. For civil cases, it deals with whether you are liable or not, while in criminal cases it's whether your guilty or not. You can be found not guilty in a criminal case, however, you can still be found liable in civil cases. It is only fair that the victims get awarded damages. Furthermore, it is not against the 5th amendment since the defendant won't be at risk of life or limb in civil cases. Moreover, those found guilty in criminal cases are rarely brought against in civil torts. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with being tried in a criminal and civil court for the same crime.…
