 |
| Still from "Twelve Angry Men" (1957) |
The judge's point may be overstated, but do you think there has ever been a time when citizens of the United States might have claimed that they could not get justice in our courts? What exactly can a government do to combat that notion?
The most famous point in history that I could think of when it comes to citizens not feeling justified, is post Civil War South were Jim Crow laws were enforced. After the Civil War, African Americans were free from slavery, and became citizens of the United States. Furious with the new laws, Southern states passed individual state laws that limited the freedoms of African Americans and made them feel ostracized from society. Many African American citizens fought to try and reverse these Jim Crow laws, but in federal court, the states held their right to make their own laws, and the federal government could not constitutionally repeal those laws. This caused the African American citizens to lose hope on the American judicial system, and feel like they could not have any justice for themselves. Luckily, as the years passed, the courts rotated their judicial, and the African Americans gained more and more justice in the South. The term "separate but equal" came around to give African Americans separate, but equal treatment in public accomedies. Taxes imposed specifically on African Americans involving voting and land owning were repealed, and in the 1960's, the civil rights movement totally got rid of the ostracism of African American citizens. The government came and progressed to include justice for minorities who felt they were being alienated from the justice system in America.
ReplyDelete-Russell McCreary II
There was also the supreme court decision of Dred Scott v Sanford in 1857. The court decided that slaves were not people but were property and that all African Americans were not deemed citizens, free or not. We ran into more problems regarding some citizens feeling that the government was being irrational during World War II when FDR made the executive decision to put Japanese citizens in internment camps from 1942-1946.
DeleteI do agree that the government has progressed as far as racial issues for the most part but we still have quite a ways to go to be considered fair for all.
I feel like there were likely many times throughout the history of the United States where people felt like they could not get justice. I would say many of those times had to do with race. This concept is even discussed in classic literature such as “To Kill a Mockingbird,” where Atticus struggles to prove the innocence of Tom Robinson, a black man, against the clearly biased and hostile courts. While the courts are the best option for justice we have, time has proven that they are not perfect. Many guilty people have gone free and many innocents have been locked up. This is the result of the courts being as flawed as the individuals that make them up. People are easily manipulated and pressured by the opinion of those around them. The juries are especially susceptible, but even the judges cannot escape their biases.
DeleteInjustice in the courts can be two different things, however. What I just described was if the courts fail to uphold the law already in place. While this is far from ideal, to a government, this many times is non threatening. If the general public for the most part does not mind a particular injustice, the government does not have to worry. Where the government has to worry is if its desires in the courts do not align with those of the general public. This is because it would cause public outcry and would lead to riots and even revolts. The only the government can practically do is change the laws unless it wants to fight its own people.