Murder on a Sunday Morning by Jean-Xavier de Lestradeis - Essay Example

“Murder on a Sunday Morning” by Jean-Xavier de Lestradeis “Murder on a Sunday Morning” is one of the many Academy Award winning documentary movies giving an in-depth analysis of the failures within the American justice system. The documentary gives a lucid account of a botched justice process in the trial of a fifteen-year-old black man- Brenton Butler, picked up and tried for the murder of a woman by the name Mary Ann-a crime he had no knowledge about. Coincidentally happening at a time the lad was leaving home to deliver an application for a job at a nearby Blockbuster video outlet, Butler was hastily rolled up into a Jacksonville PD squad car and rushed to the crime scene. Still reeling from the morning shock of his life, the young black man was unconsciously identified by James Stephens (the husband to Mary Ann), who happened to have been the sole eyewitness at the crime scene, as the “killer robber”. A subsequent 12 hour interrogation followed. Yet without substantive linking evidence, the police upheld the guilt and charged Butler for murder. The investigations techniques used by the police to unearth incriminating evidence over the 12-hour grilling period forms the hallmark of Murder on a Sunday Morning. The documentary has numerous themes. Fisrt, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade (the director) lights up a kernel of intellectual curiosity and interest and shows vividly how racism played a critical role in the unusual examinations of the legal process presented in the documentary. Through articulate defense attorneys Finnell and McGuinness, de Lestrade and his producer Poncet catalogued a constructive case that proved Butler’s innocence leaving a trail of grievous miscarriage of justice via Jacksonville Police Department shoddy investigation mechanics. Secondly, the movie documents to a greater extent the degree to which police tactics can be coercive, biased and overly-reliant on eyewitnesses, irrespective of their status at the time of cross examination at the expense of thorough of investigations. The first theme is continued throughout the narrative: the defendant was only picked up in the first place because he matched two things with the person who had committed the crime: he was black, and he was near the same part of town. It was also strongly suggested that the eye-witness made a mistake based on a combination of two factors. The defendant was of the same race and age as the person who committed the crime; these were the two main indistinguishable characteristics that the only eye-witness-James Stephens used in nailing Butler as the killer suspect. Again, it is evidently clear that the police tactical approach of finding linking evidence seems to have been coercive enough to deliver untruthful and incriminating confessions. These tactics include telling the witness lies about the facts of the case, physically abusing the defendant and so forth. According to the jury, the confessions were indeed coerced, and that the investigative tactics employed then went overboard, ultimately causing the defendant to confess to crime purely out of emotional pressure, which in effect meant lying in order to get a quick fix out of the situation gridlock without concern for the rest of his life. The defense took pictures of the interrogation room to show how it, along with the other factors in the investigation, led to an incredibly coercive atmosphere that could cause someone to confess to a crime that they did not commit. This included the lighting, the small space in the room which made everything physically intimidating, and several other factors. Task 2 In their article “Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-year-old children to Die in Prison,” Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) seeks to shift policy discussions through thorough illustrative mechanics showing that life sentencing for such young offenders is not only cruel and unusual, but not effective in terms of monetary policy of crime prevention. According to the research done by EJI, a legal research and advocacy group based in New York, dozens of teenagers, 13 and 14 in ages, have and continue to receive life imprisonment just like adults in the United States with no possibility of parole after prosecution with very little scrutiny. The paper argues that adolescents do not have fully developed brain capacity, and such cannot be treated the same as older adults. Simply put, teenagers do not have fully formed mental faculties to perpetuate fully informed emotional control, maturity, empathy and foresight to be treated by the same metric. The paper goes on to argue that sentencing children to die in prisons is a violation of the core tenets of international law. Indeed as pointed out this article, America is one of the very few countries in the world upholds capital punishment as well as the harshest sentences on young offenders with little review. The article develops a “cruel and unusual” theme by giving information on how much harsher prison sentences are for young people: given their ages, they more physically immature and gullible, thereby easily falling victims of physical and sexual harassment. Indeed, the inclusion of young offenders in adult prisons is another twist that adds on the harsher penalties for young offenders. As pointed out, children finding their way to prisons are often incredibly vulnerable prior to committing crimes. Demographically, these children suffer disproportionately from emotional and physical abuse. The article then shifts into giving a social justice argument against the practice. Like almost all of the American penal institution, race and ethnicity play massive parts in the demographics of people who are condemned to die in prison. These injustices already exist throughout the criminal justice system, but are more harsh and worthy of condemnation amongst young offenders. Those children jailed for life are almost entirely people of color and by huge margins come from entirely low-income areas. Finally, this article indicates that some young offenders are actually jailed for non serious crimes such as those without death incidences –literally, a young life for an offence that would have been punishable lesser penalties. This article is a well thought out piece backed by researched and informative evidenced into the cruel and unusual punishment rendered to young offenders across the United States, which shows ineffective use of the tax-payer purse. An alternative to the massive problems dogging the juvenile justice system with regards to the young offenders is fast required with inbuilt solutions focusing on rehabilitation rather punitive measures. Problems and Solutions for the Juvenile Justice System As mentioned above, there are massive problems with the juvenile justice system in the United States. One of the biggest problems regarding the juvenile justice system is that it lacks a coordinated approach linking other concerned groups aimed at improving the welfare of young people. This leads to failure in the intervention policies for corrective action geared towards reforming those with criminal minds. Additionally, too little attention is paid to the process of child development, and the effect that juvenile justice process can have on the later in life of young offenders. The American juvenile justice system has simply failed to recognize that most of the cases of children committing crimes relate more with the circumstantial environment rather than the children themselves. Instinctively, interventions that mirror the adult justice system will most probably fail to make appreciable impact on the desired changes. To fix this, the juvenile justice system must be better integrated with forces that can make differences elsewhere in the youths’lives. These connections can range from local community organizations such as big brothers, big sisters, to governmental responses like social workers. However, the bottom line is that there must be some efforts to change young offenders lives outside the justice system, otherwise the system as it is a catalyst for higher rates of recidivism from those coming from behind bars. Finally, until such a time that the current juvenile justice system recognizes and accounts for the psychological development in teenagers, fairness will still be elusive in the juvenile justice process. A 13 or 14 year old child often faces harsh conditions including control of the senses and all kinds of other oppressive factors. In fact, some believe that these are sources of power in their lives, and will most likely replicate an activity seen or thought of as a new venture. Modern Juvenile Justice Systems need to engender in it certain aspects of modern psychology and drift away from the captivating miniature institution of excessive control. Read More