1) Yes he did since he was able to make a clear comparison of the perception on justice towards black defendants between that of the white and black jurors. As he said, though he wants to believe that all is fair in our justice system, one cannot deny that fact that even in courts it is still a war between colors. As if society has reduced itself to two blots of colors, the black and white. The justice system was handcrafted by the whites therefore undermining the interests of the blacks in the community.
He was also able to put into contrast the societal cost of having a black man in prison as compared to setting him free. The social cost of imprisoning a black man due to non-violent crimes is far more daunting than having him locked up in jail because he looses vital functions in his society. Therefore a juror should base his decision as to what he or she thinks would benefit the society more. 2) According to Butler, when a defendant is guilty of crimes that do not involve a victim or anybody hurt on that matter, the juror should vote according to what he or she thinks is just.
Though the Supreme Court do not approve of jury nullification, they do not prohibit such acts mainly because such acts go deeper than just undermining the rule of law. Jury nullification finds its roots in the history of slavery where juries acquit white males who have committed crimes against black women. It is therefore based on the theory of “Fair play” (Butler, 2001). 3) He said that those who are guilty of non-violent or malum prohibitum and without victims who are directly harmed by the crime should be subjected to jury nullification.
Some examples that he has stated are theft or perjury and possession of illegal drugs. However crimes that are classified as malum in se or inherently bad should be subjected to the rule of law. Examples of which are murder, rape and assault which directly endanger the life of the victim. 4) Though the author thinks that jury nullification is an excellent concept and further says that he would do just the same in the case that he has presented in the essay, the later statement showed that he doubts the knowledge of the juror rather than the concept.
Jury nullification for him is justifiable in some instances however humans have some short comings that often undermine the outcome of the case therefore creating bias. 5) If in a given case the jury does not know the entire story or the details that are deemed significant in the event, then automatically the decision of the jury is biased in some way. Not all evidences or backgrounds of the defendant are made know to the jurors, hence she or she knows little of the whole story. If this happens, the jury might let a dangerous man out in the open as he or she makes an erroneous judgment on the persons personality. ) The author thinks that it is best to discus the matter of jury nullification out in the public where every aggrieved party can freely say what he has to say. The outcome of the discussion can then be subjected to interrogation so as to provide greater understanding to the populace with regards to the matter as fragile as freedom and imprisonment. The courtroom is not the place to debate such matters since the jury during proceedings are put into more stress than we could possible imagine in trying to make the right and reasonable decision. )
Statistics they say are just a bunch of useless numbers unless they are interpreted correctly. In this essay however, statistics did show the difference between the convicted African-American and that of the White Americans therefore supporting his claim that these minorities are discriminated by law. Though statistics don’t reflect everything, it shows a part of society that we chose to ignore. And according to the essay, though we are all equal before the law, we are not equal before those who are implementing the law itself. ) The double standard refers to how law enforcers subject the defendants to interrogation, search or arrest according to race, color, or wealth. The essay reveals that the treatment of enforcers to the defendants vary greatly from the poor to the rich. Moreover, the degree of punishment for crimes also differs even by the way they are crafted by the lawmakers as stated by his example on the penalty for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. 9) Wealth can be very advantageous on the part of those who have it as they not only have money to educate themselves but they also have money to defend themselves in court.
Therefore money serves as protection for those who have it since they can hire lawyers capable enough of defending them. 10) With in depth discussion of the statistics taking into consideration the places wherein these crimes occur, it has led him to conclude that the rates of crime vary from one community to the other. He further stated that more people are caught within black ghettos simply because more law enforcers are placed there. 11) Statistics clearly shows discrimination to black motorists since they are the ones inspected often.
This is because in our society there is a stigma attached to cultural minorities. The Department of justice is doing their best to improve diversity in the police for so as to eliminate the stigma. 12) Diversity he says is essential so as to eliminate suspicion based on race or class. He is optimistic that there will come a time that race will no longer be a factor for the proper service of justice in the country. References Butler, P. (2001). Black Jurors: Right to Acquit?