This isn't exactly about the shift in judicial policy from supporting the rights of the individual to supporting the rights of the individual, but I think the case does show a lot about popular opinion at the time. And I think it is an example of an effect of the Depression that lasted far longer than the Depression itself.
I think a lot of us have heard of the Scottsboro trials but might not remember exactly what happened, so I'll summarize it. Basically in 1931 a group of nine black boys got on a train on the way to Scottsboro, Alabama. There was a group of white men and two young women already on the car they joined. Though it's unclear who started it a fight did ensue and most of the white men were either pushed off or jumped off the train. They reported the incident to authorities and the train was stopped before it reached its final destination. At this point the two women decided to claim that they had been raped by the black men. The women were pretty poor and led dreary lives working at a mill. They probably just wanted attention, and they did get it. The case was a huge deal in Scottsboro with mobs of people demanding the boys' deaths. The boys didn't have any real legal representation, so all of the boys but one thirteen-year-old were found guilty.
An appeal was made and the case was moved to a different court in Alabama with a little less bias. Victoria Price, who had made the initial accusations, stuck to what she had said, but her younger companion Ruby Bates started to get confused and took back what she had said earlier about the girls having been raped. However, many of the boys were still found guilty. In the end charges were dropped for four of them, mostly because of their young age. Four of them were sent to jail with sentences as long as 75 years, and one was sentenced to death.
This is a reminder of how the Depression actually increased racism in many cases. White supremacy movements had been gaining power during the 1910s and 1920s, but the Depression exacerbated it further. Obviously white unemployed people didn't want competition for jobs, especially from a group of people whom most considered inferior. The Scottsboro boys' trial attracted a lot of attention, which can likely be attributed to the fact that someone had to be blamed for problems in people's lives. This was a time period where people were struggling to get by, and so they naturally were eager to lay blame on someone else and watch them suffer more than they themselves did.
This was an enormous setback in judicial process. From this point forward there were several arrests and trials made on the basis of a white woman claiming rape by a black man. While courts were moving forward with the idea of protecting an individual's rights, these rights often selectively applied based on the color of the defendant's skin.
However, one good thing did come of the trial. Though courts ultimately did remain biased for years to come, they did affirm the need for counsel for a trial to be considered fair. The second time the boys were tried they were permitted to talk with their defending attorney before the trial and come up with a defense, unlike the first time when the defending attorney had never spoken to them. The case greatly contributed to this right becoming a fundamental part of due process, which was progress toward a fair court system.
Though the Scottsboro boys were convicted in 1933, the Alabama parole board only issued their pardons posthumously on November 21. Though it is a good thing that this finally happened, it's a little disturbing that it took until 2013 for these pardons to be issued. There were many similar though less well known cases occurring about the same time period, and most of those pardons were never issued. I guess, as Mr. Stewart would say, this is something to ponder.
Sources:
http://library.thinkquest.org/12111/scottsboro/historic.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/newyorker/race.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
I think a lot of us have heard of the Scottsboro trials but might not remember exactly what happened, so I'll summarize it. Basically in 1931 a group of nine black boys got on a train on the way to Scottsboro, Alabama. There was a group of white men and two young women already on the car they joined. Though it's unclear who started it a fight did ensue and most of the white men were either pushed off or jumped off the train. They reported the incident to authorities and the train was stopped before it reached its final destination. At this point the two women decided to claim that they had been raped by the black men. The women were pretty poor and led dreary lives working at a mill. They probably just wanted attention, and they did get it. The case was a huge deal in Scottsboro with mobs of people demanding the boys' deaths. The boys didn't have any real legal representation, so all of the boys but one thirteen-year-old were found guilty.
An appeal was made and the case was moved to a different court in Alabama with a little less bias. Victoria Price, who had made the initial accusations, stuck to what she had said, but her younger companion Ruby Bates started to get confused and took back what she had said earlier about the girls having been raped. However, many of the boys were still found guilty. In the end charges were dropped for four of them, mostly because of their young age. Four of them were sent to jail with sentences as long as 75 years, and one was sentenced to death.
This is a reminder of how the Depression actually increased racism in many cases. White supremacy movements had been gaining power during the 1910s and 1920s, but the Depression exacerbated it further. Obviously white unemployed people didn't want competition for jobs, especially from a group of people whom most considered inferior. The Scottsboro boys' trial attracted a lot of attention, which can likely be attributed to the fact that someone had to be blamed for problems in people's lives. This was a time period where people were struggling to get by, and so they naturally were eager to lay blame on someone else and watch them suffer more than they themselves did.
This was an enormous setback in judicial process. From this point forward there were several arrests and trials made on the basis of a white woman claiming rape by a black man. While courts were moving forward with the idea of protecting an individual's rights, these rights often selectively applied based on the color of the defendant's skin.
However, one good thing did come of the trial. Though courts ultimately did remain biased for years to come, they did affirm the need for counsel for a trial to be considered fair. The second time the boys were tried they were permitted to talk with their defending attorney before the trial and come up with a defense, unlike the first time when the defending attorney had never spoken to them. The case greatly contributed to this right becoming a fundamental part of due process, which was progress toward a fair court system.
Though the Scottsboro boys were convicted in 1933, the Alabama parole board only issued their pardons posthumously on November 21. Though it is a good thing that this finally happened, it's a little disturbing that it took until 2013 for these pardons to be issued. There were many similar though less well known cases occurring about the same time period, and most of those pardons were never issued. I guess, as Mr. Stewart would say, this is something to ponder.
Sources:
http://library.thinkquest.org/12111/scottsboro/historic.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/newyorker/race.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
Can the court system today be considered fair? Of course, race is less of a factor than it was in the thirties but I believe it still plays a major role in the court, such as in the Zimmerman trial.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there were any similar cases before 1931, in which a white woman would claim to be attacked by a black man? If not, then this case seemed have to carved into stone an idea that will continue for a long period; black men rape white women. Just look at the example in To Kill A Mockingbird, where an innocent man is convicted of rape because of race; the novel reflects the actions of the 1930s. However, the numerous convictions of black men for the rape of white women cannot be attributed to the defense of all women. Hundreds of cases (especially in the south) demonstrated a trend of "protecting" white men from the unfounded accusations of black women. In fact, the first case where a group of 4 white men were sentenced to life after gangraping a black woman, Betty Jean Owens, wasn't until 1959. This case broke a precedent that had existed from the founding of the United States, in which white men could often get away with the rape of black women. I feel that this trend of finding black men guilty of rape under circumstantial evidence, and the turning of a blind eye toward black women raped by white men demonstrates deeply ingrained racism, that existed even the highest (and supposedly most fair) courts in America.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest reading Maya's post and Mehr's comment made me feel a bit uneasy as it makes me wonder how fair of a trial a person receives through trial by jury? When a person is tried for a crime the verdict comes from the jurors and what is not to say that the juror outwardly might not be racist, but subconsciously so. It could affect the outcome of the trial because a juror will already have presumptions about the defendant and if it is a negative one a truly fair outcome will not be reached. Though jurors are told to only considered the facts it is impossible for prejudice not somehow get in the way.
ReplyDeletei think Kathlene that a truly faire trial is as impossible as a truly communist government. In theory when you examine our court system, void of people, it is a fair system. People get representation by a lawyer, and they are judged by a jury with the combined judgement of a multitude of individuals. On paper I'm not sure if you could find a fairer judicial system. Unfortunately we can not just apply the judicial system on paper. It must be applied to reality, and in reality there are people. I think it would not be false to assertion that humans, no matter where they are from, are prejudiced in some way shape or form. As humans it is impossible not to be. We depend on society and on our elders to provide us with information and judgments before we can make them ourselves and after we are able to make judgements we are influenced by social pressures and popular ideas. Thus your fear of an unfair judgement, unfortunately applies to each and every case. Even those that you may judge faire, because the reality is that in those situations your bias merely agrees with that of the jury.
ReplyDelete