OBJECTION!-Post 4 (Trials and Tribulations)

     As we get near the end of TKAM, we read about Tom Robinson's trial. In the trial, Robinson was wrongly convicted of raping Mayella Ewell despite Atticus' great defense that obviously proved not only Robinson's innocence but showed significant evidence towards Bob Ewell being guilty of beating his daughter. Which sadly means that the Jim Crow era's racism strikes again. It was quite evident that the jury was racially bias and that Robinson should have walked away a free man. Let's examine why.

    First off, there were some contradicting testimonies in the trial. For instance, Heck Tate said that Mayella had bruises across her body's right side, meaning that the guilty party of those bruises was left handed; to which Atticus proves Bob to be left handed by asking him to right his name and he did, with his LEFT hand. What about Tom? Well it was shown to everyone in the jury that Tom could not use his left hand due to it being crippled by a cotton gin many years back, so he did everything with his RIGHT hand. In a court hearing nowadays, that would be a point against Bob Ewell (*insert dramatic music*).

See that the evidence doesn't stack up against Tom so far!

   Next we have the witnesses' stories. Tom's story is different than the other three as he said that Mayella had often asked him to do jobs for her and that on that particular one she tried to kiss him to which Bob Ewell saw so Tom booked it. Mayella on the other hand stated that this was the first time she had asked Tom to do a job for her in the house and it was then he took advantage of her. This is the main contradiction (and yes, November is NOT in the spring in Alabama people) as Heck Tate and Bob's testimonies occurred after Tom and Mayella's with the exception of Bob allegedly coming to Mayella's 'rescue' after he had heard her screams.Speaking of, it was pretty obvious the Mayella was lying in he testimony out of her fear of her father as shown by her constant hesitations and overusing the 'believe me, I'm a crying and scared woman ' and 'please pity the poor, crying, innocent little girl' cards (no offense girls, those 'cards' are just somethings that has been around because of the patriarchy's double standard and was a large part of Mayella's cross examination responses). After all of the evidence was provided, the jury after many hours concluded Tom to be guilty of all charges. Which was completely false if you looked at all the evidence. This was me when I read that Tom was convicted:

     I believe (as well as majority of the readers) that Tom was innocent and should have been declared so by the jury because of the evidence greatly supporting that. Looking at Mr. Gilmer's cross examination of Tom, he asked why Tom ran away, to which Tom responded it was because he was black and the if Gilmer was black he would understand. That definitely showed oppression.Oppression also showed itself at the trial again with the jury's decision.Tom was convicted mostly not because of the evidence, but because he was black. Had Tom been a white man, he mostly likely would have been declared innocent. Thus oppression was shown via the racism of the jury. That racist decision ultimately lead to Robinson's death when he was shot seventeen times while trying to escape the jail he was sent to without hesitation. 

      The trial of Tom Robinson reminded me of the Duke lacrosse rape scandal that happened back in 2006. That trial also had three innocent people wrongly convicted of raping an 'exotic dancer'. However, these three men were later proven innocent in 2007 because of DNA evidence that failed to see the light in the first trial and were all white unlike Robinson. Though the similarity of a bias jury and thus miscarriage of justice still remain. That in both cases, Robinson's and the first Duke trial, despite the evidence proving the innocence of both Tom and the men they were still convicted by a bias jury (which showed oppression in both cases). Which is sad because it is written law that a jury should NEVER be bias so it can be "a fair trial by jury."
     In conclusion, Tom should have walked away innocent; but because of the jury's racist mindset and thus bias he was convicted. The trial helped show oppression of blacks on numerous occasions such as Tom's answer to the prosecution's question and the final decision. A similar case became present in 2006 with the Duke lacrosse scandal. However with three white men also getting their lives ruined by a bias jury and miscarriage of justice. My question is, why must oppression exist and will the U.S and the world ever be an actual place where "all men are created equal?" Like seriously, despite the Jim Crow laws being eradicated, racism and oppression against colored people and even still women is still very present in today's society, which is extremely sad. The founding fathers of our country would certainly be disappointed in us that even after 240 years the things they and many people of ALL races and genders fought and died for still haven't been fully established like equality.

                                                                         -TP


P.S

A Study from Gallup in 2013 shows that a lot of other people agree with my last statement 

                                                                Sources and Stuffs
Duke Rape Case (60 Minutes- Eye Witness News)
facepalm: http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg 
Attorney pic
Attorney pic 2
One article about the Study about disappointment:
 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130708/18440823744/71-americans-believe-founding-fathers-would-be-disappointed-way-nation-has-turned-out.shtml
The Gallup study about disappointment in the founding fathers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163361/proud-american.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics