Democratic societies like Canada and the United States follow the unwritten and underlying principle of “rule of law”. The rule of law ensure that a certain level of procedural justice are achieved in trials, as they provide the court with a basic grid of evaluation. However, such procedural processes were not respected in the Bryant-Milam trial, as the the two social categories of race and social class tarnished the processes of the trial, fostering impartial judicial proceedings and ultimately disallowing justice. The trials ability in achieving justice was deterred as occupational status and race contaminated and fostered impartiality amongst the jury, the witnesses and the provided evidence; three of the fundamental components of a judicial proceedings. Firstly, the jurors of a trial are of paramount importance as they bring in community sentiments about particular actions. These varying sentiments become essential to the courts and the lawyers as they accordingly adapt their rhetorical devices to the varying sentiments. In doing so popular values are introduced to the court. This further reinstates the paramount importance of having an impartial jury, as they must have neutral sentiments about the case before hearing the trial. However, in the Bryant-Milam trial, such neutrality was nearly impossible. This is further supported as potential juror Robert Smith declared that “Anybody in his right mind would have a fixed opinion.”. The rule of law requires the right to be tried by an impartial jury however, this condition was left unsatisfied in the Bryant-Milam trial, as both race and geographic region systematically excluded black individuals from the jury.
…show more content…
In 1950’s the Tallahatchie population was physically dominated by non-white individuals however, it was politically dominated by the white individuals. There was a total of 9,235 black individuals whom were of age to vote, yet none of them were registered voters. Essentially, 0% of the 9,235 people had a voice in their county’s political life. This inherently resulted in an all white jury in the Bryant-Milam trial. Similar issues arose in the Scottsboro boys trial. Surely, there was a “white perspective” in the Bryant-Milam trial, indirectly influencing the courts proceedings and final judgements. This prejudice was evident as one of the defence attorneys declared that “After the jury was chosen, any first-year law student could have won the case.”. Essentially, the entrenched racial stereotypes exploit the characteristics of a geographic region, ostracizing black individuals from the the region’s legal processes. Another element of a fair trial is the neutrality of the witness panel. During a witnesses testimony, witnesses are asked to reiterate their experiences with respects to the crime. This is essential to a trials proceedings as witnesses are theoretically a primary resource of unbiased information, further assisting the courts in reaching a conclusion that achieves justice. However, similar to the corruption taken place in the jury selection of the Bryant-Milam trial, the social categories of race and social class procedurally disturbed the selection of witnesses. Sheriff Strider, a man in a position of authority manipulated the witness panel, as he detained two black males (whom assisted in the Till abduction) in a Charleston jail under false identities, indirectly contaminating witness information. Essentially, Strider used his authoritative figure to exploit the already present social issue of racism by excluding the black witnesses. The already marginalized race is further suppressed by an authority figure. Similar to the
In 1950’s the Tallahatchie population was physically dominated by non-white individuals however, it was politically dominated by the white individuals. There was a total of 9,235 black individuals whom were of age to vote, yet none of them were registered voters. Essentially, 0% of the 9,235 people had a voice in their county’s political life. This inherently resulted in an all white jury in the Bryant-Milam trial. Similar issues arose in the Scottsboro boys trial. Surely, there was a “white perspective” in the Bryant-Milam trial, indirectly influencing the courts proceedings and final judgements. This prejudice was evident as one of the defence attorneys declared that “After the jury was chosen, any first-year law student could have won the case.”. Essentially, the entrenched racial stereotypes exploit the characteristics of a geographic region, ostracizing black individuals from the the region’s legal processes. Another element of a fair trial is the neutrality of the witness panel. During a witnesses testimony, witnesses are asked to reiterate their experiences with respects to the crime. This is essential to a trials proceedings as witnesses are theoretically a primary resource of unbiased information, further assisting the courts in reaching a conclusion that achieves justice. However, similar to the corruption taken place in the jury selection of the Bryant-Milam trial, the social categories of race and social class procedurally disturbed the selection of witnesses. Sheriff Strider, a man in a position of authority manipulated the witness panel, as he detained two black males (whom assisted in the Till abduction) in a Charleston jail under false identities, indirectly contaminating witness information. Essentially, Strider used his authoritative figure to exploit the already present social issue of racism by excluding the black witnesses. The already marginalized race is further suppressed by an authority figure. Similar to the