Uncategorized – Page 3 – Literature and Law Spring 2020

12 Angry Men

I chose to watch 12 Angry Men for this blog post. Besides reading the synopsis, I had no idea what I was about to watch. However, I am very happy with my decision to watch this. I was able to draw two connections from this movie to readings from class. One is to Death and the Maiden and the other is To Kill A Mockingbird.

The first connections I made happened right after the preliminary vote of whether the boy was guilty or not. I made this connection to Death and the Maiden. When the jurors were asked if the boy was guilty, 11 of the men raised their hands before moving to the not guilty vote. But, not all 11 men immediately raised their hands. A few of them were hesitant, as if they were looking to see how many other people voted guilty, or like they didn’t believe he was guilty, before they decided to vote. This reminded me of the scene in Death and the Maiden when the Gerardo was asking Paulina if Roberto is really the person, she thinks he is. Was he really the person responsible or was he just someone that she could place the blame on, that just so happened to fit the description she remembered?

This is the same question that juror 8 was asking, especially when it came to the witness that was an old man. The witness said he heard the boy yelling at his father right before the father’s body dropped to the ground, dead. Then after a few moments, he saw the boy running down the stairs. This is when juror 8 began to question the man’s recount of events. As I mentioned earlier the witness is an old man, who also happens to have a limp that makes it hard for him to walk. After a quick recreation of the man’s account to get to his door to see the boy run down, he questions whether the witness saw the boy run down the stairs or, at this point, if he even saw anyone run down the stairs. Which goes back to the question Gerardo has. Did the boy do it or is he someone that the blame has fallen on? As the men began to change their votes, this possibility gets stronger.

I found a couple connections between this movie and To Kill A Mockingbird. The first is the idea that one group of people is worse than another. In To Kill A Mockingbird, the trial was between a white family and a black man. In the book, the Tom Robinson, the black man, had a white man to vouch for him and say that he was not like what people thought of black men, even though he was not on trial or called as a witness. In 12 Angry Men, the trial was between two people in the slums. While deliberating, one of the jurors was trying to say that because he was from the slums, killing was something “those people” always did. However, one of the jurors also lived in the slums at one point in time, and he vouched for the boy saying that just because he was from the slums doesn’t necessarily mean he is a bad child and a killer. This juror was explaining that even though most of the time it was usually someone from the slums committing similar crimes, it is not always someone from the slums. It could very well be someone from what society would call “good people”, and that he should look at the facts of the case and base his vote on that and not on where the boy is from.

The second connection between these two happens during the cross-examination by Atticus of Mayella in To Kill A Mockingbird and during the discussion of the old male witness between juror 8 and juror 3. During the cross-examination of Mayella, Atticus started asking her questions that evoked answers that pointed away from Tom Robinson, and more towards her father as the real perpetrator. In other words, she almost let the truth out, that Tom was not guilty of raping her, but her father was guilty of it. The same thing happened right after juror 8 made is point about the old witness being an unreliable when it comes to him having seen the boy running down the stairs. Even though no question was asked, and I don’t remember exactly what was said, but it caused juror 3 to respond, “half the time, the old man was confused” or something of that nature. Juror 3 almost let his true feelings out, that he didn’t believe the boy was guilty.

Determining guilt is very important when someone’s life is on the line. All three of these works shows different ways guilt could be determined. One by witness, one by prejudice, and one by refusing to be truthful. All of which could lead to a false verdict of guilt. Luckily, in the end of this film, one juror was able to convince the other 11 that the boy was not guilty.

To Kill a Mockingbird and Just Mercy: Racism and it’s constant negativity

This week for our media assignment I chose to watch the new Just Mercy film. This movie exhibits the life and career of Bryan Stevenson, whose life goal is not only to defend those wrongly accused and unfairly charged; but mainly to help a man named Walter McMillian. Throughout the entire film, there are many instances of racism and legal troubles that the characters face. As I was watching this movie, I was thinking about which piece we discussed in class this semester would best relate to this storyline. As I finished the film, I realized that Just Mercy relates itself in many ways to another classic piece: To Kill a Mockingbird. I read both Just Mercy: A story of Justice and Redemption (the book the movie was based on), and To Kill a Mockingbird in high school. Rereading/watching these works now in college made me see the deeper themes and therefore made it alot easier for me to see the relations between the two. The main similarity that stood out to me was the theme of prejudice throughout both of these pieces. Prejudice in the form of racism is very prevalent in both Just Mercy and To Kill a Mockingbird, showing how important this issue continues to be. To Kill a Mockingbird exhibits racism in many ways throughout the novel, especially when it comes to people being racist towards Tom Robinson. This is a point I discussed in a previous blog post regarding To Kill a Mockingbird, and I think it is also extremely important that it be brought in this discussion and comparison. It is very obvious that the surrounding community believes that because of the color of Tom’s skin, he does not deserve a fair trial. People ultimately believed that Tom was guilty just by taking one look at him and seeing that he was black. There are many examples that could have proved Tom to be innocent, such as the fact that he had a crippled left arm and essentially had no motive to commit the crime at hand. These examples did not phase the public though because of his skin color in the end. The fact that Atticus believes Tom innocence even ends up causing problems within the community. Scout and Cecil end up fighting when Cecil announces that Scout’s father is defeding a negro. It becomes evident that racism is not only causing problems in the courtroom regarding Tom’s fate, but even sparks controversy between the rest of the people in the community. Atticus ends up being shamed over the sole fact that he believes Tom is innocent, so not only are people being discriminated against, but it leads to people’s thoughts and beliefs leading them to be discriminated against as well. As for Just Mercy, it is very similar in the fact that it includes the case of an innocent black man being accused and charged for a crime he did not commit. But not only does this film include a case of a black man wrongfully accused, but it also includes acts of racism towards Bryan Stevenson, a lawyer recently graduated from Harvard Law who just recently moved to the South. Stevenson experiences racism himself throughout this plot. Even though he is a successful Harvard grad (a very prestigious accomplishment), people still treat him like a minority because of the color of his skin and his career focus, which is helping African American inmates who have wrongfully ended up on death row. Stevenson has many problems starting up his own law firm in Alabama because of these two ideas. For example, when looking for a building to rent for this law firm, he is denied when they learn what his goals as a lawyer are. Bryan Stevenson’s client, Walter Mcmillian, whose case is the main focus of the film, experiences racism in many cruel and serious ways. This man was wrongfully accused of a serious crime, and the reasoning for his arrest is shocking. Police believe the word of a white convict saying he committed this crime over the word of multiple people who were with Mcmillian the day of the crime at a barbeque that was a few hours away. This group of individuals were black, which shows that the police believed one white man over a group of black individuals solely because of skin color. Another and final example of racism in this movie regards Mcmillian’s “cell neighbor” when he is in jail. This man was arrested because the police said “he just looked like a murderer”. His arrest was solely based on the color of his skin, nothing more. In the end, both of these pieces not only exhibit multiple instances of racism, but they show how this continues to be a problem that needs to be solved. These examples are emotional and hit home, they show why it is so unfair to treat people differently based on the color of their skin, and how their prejudice affects individuals and entire communities in the long run.

Policing and its impact on victims

The show Unbelievable, the mini-series detailing the true stories of a serial rapist, opens by presenting the sexual assault of the first victim, Marie Adler in rural Washington. Marie Adler was addressed by two male detectives, who first speak to her in a contradictory and repetitive manner. They collect evidence from the crime scene without Marie’s help and make her recount her statement multiple times there before taking her to the hospital. When inquiring about Marie, Detective Parker is told by her old foster mother essentially to not believe her, who states she seeks attention and has a troubled past. It is this attack on Marie’s credibility which acts as a catalyst for the detectives to abruptly and completely not believe her. After this conversation, the aggressive tone of the detectives is only amplified and Marie is pressured into saying she was lying.

This depiction of the two male detectives is foiled by the characters of the two female detectives. When the next victim, Amber, is raped in Colorado, Detective Duvall has a procedure she follows and explains to the victim, highlighting the discrepancies between her investigation and the male detectives’. Her investigation includes swabbing the face of the victim, walking her back through the crime scene, speaking to her in private etc. She is diligent about crime scene collection and making sure everything is done to collect as much evidence as possible within a timeframe that it is freshest. This discrepancy of the amount and quality of evidence collected is especially disheartening in the end, when the rapist reveals the most mistakes he made (in terms of leaving traces of DNA, etc.) occurred in Washington. Eventually, Detective Duvall makes a connection with a rape in another jurisdiction investigated by Detecive Rasmussen, and the two females move forward invesitgating together.

After the decision to fully merge their investigations, Detective Rasmussen says to Detective Duvall “You’re gonna move over to my joint. It’s no offense but we’ve got better toys. We’re gonna bring in the FBI. We’re gonna bring in the CBI. We’re gonna exploit every goddamn resource available to us” (ep. 3). It is this quote that brought my attention to look at how the film portrays the gap between training, resources, and experience between the two pairs of detectives. Not only are the female detectives aware of various resources, seek them out, and employ them, the audience can recognize their specialization as a part of sex crime investigations. With Detective Duvall, her experience (even though she is less experienced out of the two) is implied in her familiarity with the nurses who examine victims, and describes them as being great at their jobs.

The depiction of resources, experience, and specialized investigations is juxtaposed through cuts of scenes between them and the detectives of Marie Adler’s case. The visual imagery of the female pair’s department shows its breath of resources and specialization: the detectives have their own workspace, a detailed crime lab, available personal, and advanced technology. This is contrasted by the department of the male detectives. They are not specialized in sex crimes investigations and seem to lack in resources in terms of both technology and forensics. It is this juxtaposition though that is exacerbated by the male detectives conduct, which makes them individually responsible for various injustices.

It is the male detectives lack of their own self-awareness of their lack of experience coupled with their pride/ego which make them completely fail at their investigation. Rather than recognizing their own lack of experience in sex crimes and thus actively defining how they recognize rape through Marie, they instead deconstruct her story inaccurately based on their predispositions. Another Detective from a different district, Kirkland, calls this pair after a tip to collaborate based on the similar evidence of their two rapes. Instead of reopening the case and reevaluating their mistake, Detective Parker instead shuts him down by saying it was fabricated. An irony lies in the fact the very details and consistencies they found peculiar enough to disbelieve Marie’s story are the very details which form this connection. This shows Detective Parker’s inability to critically think about the investigation and his willingness to follow the misinformation. Unlike the female detectives who were willing to compare their cases, Detective Parker is not willing to look for evidence to corroborate Marie’s story and get justice for her. He only seeks to falsify it. In the end, it is his Hubris which ultimately causes the investigation to fail. However instead of causing their own downfall, it causes Marie’s. Not only does she not gain justice, they have the audacity to charge her with a crime of false reporting and never apologize.

Alongside other things we have read in class, I find myself comparing these interpretations to George Orwell’s piece “The Courthouse Ring” and To Kill a Mockingbird. In a sense, I think a connection can be drawn between Tom Robinson and Marie Adler in an opposing yet parallel sense. Tom is innocent being charged with commiting sexual assault because of racial bias towards him. Marie is a sexual assault victim whose perpetrator won’t be prosecuted because of police bias towards her. Tom does not receive justice because of racism of the jurors and the sheriff; Marie does not receive justice because of the bias and misconceptions of the detectives’ and the stepmother’s notions about rape.

I also think it can be interesting to compare Marie Adler with Mayella Ewell, and what a comparison of someone lying and telling the truth about sexual assault can show about the treatment of female complainants. Orwell cites a scholar who critques Atticus’ goal “to expliot a virtual catalog of misconceptions and fallacies about rape, each one calculuated to heighten mistrust of the female complaintant” (TNY). Orwell argues that Atticus asserts Mayella “was so starved for sex that she spent an entire year scheming for a way to make it happen” which is “to swap one set of priveldges for another” (TNY). Orwell demonstrates that while it was appropriate to defend Tom, the construction of a defense based on misconceptions surronding what rape and feminity should look like harms actual victims. For Atticus, he believes Mayella should have been hit on the opposite side of her face and employs the ” ‘she wanted it’ defense” (TNY). For the male detectives and Marie’s step mother, details of the shoelace and knife seem unlikely. Moreover, her emotional response is not what they would anticipate it to be and believe it is a ploy for attention. Both show that the need to deconstruct misconceptions about how sexual assault is shown and reacted to. Without this change, conflations of lying with victimhood can continue occuring, harming true victims as they report crimes committed against their bodies.

Modern Day “Death and the Maiden”

Ariel Dorfman’s “Death and the Maiden” was written 30 years ago about the Chilean regime. While it may seem specific, the play offers thematic elements that aren’t confined to the context of the play and are actually still relevant today. When reading the play, I felt that I had heard the story before, and I had actually seen it twice before reading what I consider the original. As a crime show fan, I’ve watched all of Criminal Minds and a lot of Law and Order SVU. Both shows pride themselves on using relevant topics for their content so I was surprised to realize that a play about Chile written 30 years prior was a basis for episodes from the shows. It proves to me that the topic of survivors finding a place in the law is still very much relevant today.

The Criminal Minds episode “Unknown Subject” is about the BAU team trying to catch a serial rapist, not knowing that one of the former victims had kidnapped a man she believed to be the perpetrator. She believed him to be her attacker because he played a song that had been repeatedly played while she was raped, creating a physical reaction for her. This directly takes an element from “Death and the Maiden” because of the song. She uses a gun and kidnaps him to hear his confession, like Paulina does to Roberto. The discomfort with the situation of the “at home” version of the law is the same as it is in “Death and the Maiden”. The episode makes you uncomfortable because as the man is pleading his case to the survivor, he seems so rational and believable. This is very much like Roberto. He tries to outsmart her by throwing logical alternatives to her belief that he committed the crime. Like Paulina, the survivor is portrayed to be the one that is crazy. She seems overly aggressive and irrational- a contrast to the man who seems to be trying to bring reason in the situation. In Law and Order SVU, “Remember Me/Remember Me Too”, the situation is similar. The kidnapped man who the woman believes the perpetrator is believed. He is thought to be the rational one trying to bring reason into a situation created by the woman who he calls “a crazy bitch”. Because the man is portrayed as the rational one, both episodes are uncomfortable. This leads for me to the question of where the law provides space for survivors, especially female survivors. The reality is that in each of these works, the law does not offer an obvious place for women. So much so that the women believe that it is better to kidnap their alleged abuser rather than turn to the police. These women are angry. The law seems to be actively working against them and believing the perpetrators and so they believe that they have to find justice for themselves. This anger and frustration with the law is misplaced by the women which causes them to be portrayed as crazy and irrational. As discussed in Criminal Minds, the system is a revictimization of these survivors so they create their own system. The law is imperfect here. It does more to serve the perpetrators than it does for the victims so the victims get angry. Their credibility is destroyed with their anger because of how they seem, giving the credibility to the alleged perpetrator they have kidnapped. Even though the two shows were made much later than the play, the fact that they used the premise of the play shows that this topic is still very much an issue today and the law is still not giving survivors the space that they need.

What is interesting about the episodes I watched is that both TV shows have a much stronger resolution that “Death and the Maiden”. In Criminal Minds, the BAU bursts in and convinces the survivor to put down her gun by telling her that the guy she kidnapped isn’t the perp. When he walks outside though, they arrest him for the 12 rapes. The man in Law and Order is also found to be guilty. We don’t get that same resolution or even an answer in “Death and the Maiden” and I think that is often the result of the law. I think the fact that these two modern takes end differently than the play proves that the law is moving more towards finding concrete answers for survivors. Maybe it is going to take a long time still and it is not going to be an easy journey, but the modern versions could be showing a shift in mindset of the people, which could lead to changes in the law. And this change could provide room for survivors in the law- something that each of these works prove is necessary for the success of justice.

Each of the works also prove how important a confession is to the healing of survivors. While they each change elements of the story, especially the endings, all of the survivors on the show want a confession. It is why each of them create their own “trials”. It shows how important the truth is for the law and for the healing of victims. These women need to hear their attackers confess and tell the truth so that they may start their healing process. The space in which they do this is their own because the law does not provide one for them.

Just Mercy shares shocking similarities to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird in that both are based in the town of Monroeville, Alabama and show a black man wrongfully convicted of a violent crime by an angry white community. However, the Mockingbird Trial took place in the 1930s and Walter McMillian’s case happened in the 1980s. The original trial shocked the Monroeville community after Atticus was able to prove Tom Robinson’s innocence and he was still convicted as guilty and sent to jail. While in jail awaiting execution for his wrongful conviction the guards shot him 17 times in the back stating he attempted to escape.

Nearly 50 years later an almost identical case transpires where Walter McMillian is wrongfully convicted of murder and is waiting on death row for his date. What has changed in those 50 years follows in the wake of To Kill a Mockingbird, there are people who testify against previous false testimonies, there is a DA who eventually agrees all charges need to be dropped, and there is a new generation who sees men like Walter as a person. Progress is slow and takes generations to grow into full blow change, but Walters story shows that very change taking place. The community of Monroeville remember how horrid it was that a man was wrongfully convicted and want things right. There is a young guard in the prison who sees Walter as a human and lets him have pictures of his family when he is in solitary confinement. There’s a young new District Attorney who struggles to protect himself from the “old guard” police force and serve justice to a man he knows was wrongfully convicted of murder. There’s a community of family and friends who 50 years ago would have been lynched if they testified coming out still in fear to testify against this unjust case. All of these are the ripples of change that the original Mockingbird case set forth for this small town and for the nation as a whole.

There is a new generation of lawyers, guards, family, and friends who grew up on the equality and justice Atticus Finch tried to grant to Tom Robinson, and not the hate and prejudice that leads to his death. These few are the ones who worked their way into the corrupt Monroeville justice system and are helping make sure it doesn’t repeat itself again and again. These points play off my earlier post about how the coming of age story is imparted onto us as we read To Kill a Mockingbird early on in middle and high-school. The work this book did, the seed it planted, is growing and has grown with everyone who knows of it. Much like Scout, the people in this movie are new to a case like this but not completely foreign to it – and they know from one very smart girl and her brave father just how to handle it.

Justice Served Vs Justice Due

While watching Just Mercy, I found issue with the continuous defense of historical justice in contrast to the justice that was actually due. This movie takes place in the same town of Monroeville, Alabama that the town of Maycomb in To Kill a Mockingbird is based on. In this true story by Bryan Stevenson, this same town that had the unlawful case against Tom Robinson had, not 50 years later, an almost identical case made against Walter McMillian. The issue of justice served and justice due comes when the District Attorney in this movie, Tommy Chapman, states that he knows that Walter is guilty because he was convicted by a jury. The defense of this “justice” is what sets both Tom and Walter into the same boat. They are both going to be convicted just because the jury believes they did it. There is no need for evidence, proof, or legit testimony. All that is needed is a jury that believes they have the right man.

Justice due is what should have happened. It is a battle in a courtroom where things are fair– where the convicted are not “guilty from the moment you born” as Walter McMillian puts it. Justice due would be a town learning from their racist past and not allowing it to repeat again. In this movie it can almost seem like the town feels like they have already found justice and dont need to go looking for more. They have already had their landmark case where the community was wrong and a man was wrongfully convicted, and rather than admit their relapse and reopen the case they defend the justice already served. Yet, there was no such thing as justice when there had yet to have been a man released from death row in the state of Alabama, when one in nine death row cases have been proven innocent and released, and when the word of one white felon outweighed the voices of two dozen law-abiding black witnesses. Justice was not served by the first jury that convicted Walter and a retrial is the only way any justice can be given.

Human life is one of the most valuable things known to us. So why then is our justice system so ready to sentence someone to death rather than defend against a retrial? Even the slimmest chance that someone can be saved from wrongful execution is more valuable than any social, historical, or legal reasoning in opposition of a retrial.

Philadelphia (1993)

I chose to watch the film Philadelphia for my post. I was drawn to this film because I am an avid supporter for LGBTQ+ rights and have personal experience with a family member who deals with the struggles of the virus HIV. Also, who doesn’t love Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington?

In the film Philadelphia, lawyer Andrew Beckett was fired from his job at Philadelphia’s most prestigious law firm despite the fact that he worked as a brilliant lawyer and has always had an amazing job performance. In response, he launches a wrongful termination suit against the attorneys who fired him from his law firm because they fired him for being gay and HIV-positive. Three major themes portrayed in the film that are also represented in some of the texts we have read throughout the course of the semester are discrimination, good vs. evil, and justice.

The first connection I drew between the film and our class materials was the main theme addressed in Philadelphia and “Whiteness as Property” by Cheryl I. Harris. Both the film and the text address discriminatory law. In “Whiteness as Property,” Harris examines the way in which the legal system has come to favor whites over people of color. Similarly, Beckett’s case in Philadelphia addresses the way in which the legal system has come to disfavor those who are homosexual. The attorneys of his law firm fired Beckett after finding out he was gay and HIV-positive, which is absolute discrimination. They had no other reason to fire him based off of his reputable job performance. Discriminatory laws have been put in place, but cases like Andrew Beckett’s still occur. In “Whiteness as Property,” Harris addresses the racism that has been embedded into the American society as a result of white privilege being protected under the law. The same concept is addressed in Philadelphia to those who are homosexual or suffer from HIV.

There were several connections I was able to draw between Philadelphia and To Kill a Mockingbird. The first connection I made is the historical context in each story in relation to the themes of discrimination. To Kill a Mockingbird takes place in the 1930’s. During this time, racial discrimination was an extreme issue. The vast majority of the citizens of Maycomb were racist. Philadelphia takes place in Philadelphia (shocking, right?) while the AIDs epidemic was fairly new and many homosexual people, especially those infected with HIV, faced extreme discrimination. People were not only downright homophobic, but they were even afraid to go near someone infected with HIV despite the fact that the disease can only be transmitted through bodily fluids. Therefore, there is a major connection between Andrew Beckett and Tom Robinson. Beckett relates to Tom Robinson in the sense that they are both victims of discrimination. Beckett suffers from discrimination for his sexual orientation disease while Tom Robinson suffers from racial discrimination.

Another connection I made between To Kill a Mockingbird and the film was the theme good versus evil. This is portrayed through the courtroom scenes. The case and courtroom scenes pictured in Philadelphia reminded me a lot of those featured in To Kill a Mockingbird. The court officials in To Kill a Mockingbird are described as “little gray-faced men, they seemed untouched by the wind or sun,” while the attorneys who fired Beckett are also gray-faced, unlively, and dull. It reminded me of the way Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson were the “good” in the case in To Kill a Mockingbird while Bob Ewell is the “evil.” Similarly, Andrew Beckett and Joe Miller play the role of “good” while the other attorneys of Beckett’s ex-firm play the role of “evil.” I also found that Andrew Beckett and Joe Miller possessed many traits that reminded me of Atticus Finch. Beckett is an excellent lawyer who genuinely loves his job and enjoys “justice being done.” These three men are passionate about their careers, wise, intelligent, diligent, and committed to justice. Just like Atticus was the only lawyer willing to defend Tom Robinson in his case, Joe Miller was the only attorney willing to represent Andrew Beckett in his case. They all represent the side that readers and viewers want to root for as they read/watch.

Unfortunately, in the end of the film, justice was served but Beckett falls fatally ill and soon passes away in the hospital. The jury voted in his favor, awarding him back for pay, pain, suffering, and punitive damages valued at over $5 million. Although justice was served, and Beckett won his case, it was terribly sad to see him die at the end of the film. This was similar to the unjust death of Tom Robinson. Beckett and Tom Robinson were both innocent men who did not deserve to die. However, both stories were able to carry out the themes of discrimination and provide some sort of happy-ish ending. Although he died, Beckett won his case. Although Tom Robinson was killed, justice was ultimately served when Bob Ewell was killed.

Discussion Questions for 4/7: Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins”

This is our final non-literary reading for this course, and originally my intent was to have it serve as a bridge between To Kill a Mockingbird and a Toni Morrison novel – in other words, between a novel that deals with racism against Black men on the one hand and (the possibility of) sexual violence against white women on the other – and a novel in which oppression and violence against Black women are placed front and center. I am still firm in my conviction that cutting material was the best decision for our class, given the circumstances, but I mourn not being able to end with a literary text that might illuminate and complicate Crenshaw’s ideas. If reading through Crenshaw’s essay prompts you to draw connections to literary works you’re familiar with that aren’t on the syllabus, I invite you to discuss them on the blog.

That said, I’m excited to hear your thoughts on reading this essay on the heels of Mockingbird. How might Crenshaw inform our reading of this novel’s comment on race, gender, class, and the law? Are there passages in Crenshaw’s essay that strike you as especially resonant with Lee’s novel? Are there moments in the novel that spring to mind for you as you read this essay?

Crenshaw and Harris’s essays both appear in the same anthology on Critical Race Theory. I invite you to think about points of comparison and contrast between these two pieces.

This Coming of Age Imparted Onto Us

No matter how we read Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird the story always at its core is a coming of age story for Scout and Jem. This trial was a grueling development in the children’s life and as such has shaped them by the end. Scout’s development is what interests me most as it revolves around her self discovery in a sense. She discovers who she is in the scale of race, class, and even as a woman. This trial has taught Scout of the distinctions and separations in all of these areas. She finally can see she is not only a white person, but a comparatively wealthy, white, female. This comes as a fulfilling ending to the novel as we have seen it grow through her actions with Boo and the gifts he brings, the contrast she finds between herself and Mayella, and the distinction between her family and that of the Ewells. All of these are major points that guide Scout into realizing who she is in this world.

I find it to be no coincidence that this novel has become a common middle and high school required reading. I can remember vividly reading this in my 7th grade ENGL classes! What this books does well is impart this coming of age onto us the reader. Reading this novel was a defining event for me and many others as we grew up. The awkward silences when vulgarities were used, the sideways glances between students when hearing of Dill’s tragic family life, or the shadow that engulfs a middle school classroom hearing that Tom Robinson was shot 17 times in his back…

These are emotional events that Scout had to face and we, the reader, must face with her. This novel forces young readers to grow with it as they read it. It allows readers to follow Scout’s path and come to the conclusion of who they are. It can highlight the class, race, and gender privilege at an early age and allow us to begin understanding these concepts so that we can know ourselves. Once we know ourselves we can begin growing and fixing our prejudices, using our privilege for fairness and equality, and reconciling our innocent past with the gritty future after what we learn from reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

Why Tom Ran

Tom Robinson’s decision to run from the prison and try to escape confounds Atticus. “We had such a good chance,” (Lee 269) he says in reference to the appellate case after learning Tom was shot and killed trying to escape. Atticus had assured Tom of this as they were leaving court after the verdict had been given. The black community in Maycomb rallied behind Atticus and trusted him when he said there was still hope, so why didn’t Tom? Why would Tom Robinson with one good hand try to escape from prison knowing his chances were slim and that he would be shot if caught? Simply, he knew that his slim chance at escape was his only hope.

The day Mayella and Bob Ewell uttered Tom Robinson’s name to the sheriff was the day he was arraigned, tried, and convicted of rape and sentenced to death by electrocution. “This case is as simple as black and white,” (Lee 231) Atticus says during the trial, and indeed it was, at least in the eyes of the jury. While Atticus may have truly had some hope in the appeal, it was easier for him to trust a legal system he was familiar with and that he fit into. Atticus, despite being a well-respected lawyer, a reputable man, and treating all people with dignity, was still white. The jury, court, lawyers, and entire legal system was also white, and as long as it was completely white-washed, Tom saw no chance at him regaining his life through the court. The value of his word and his life did not matter as much in the 1930s American legal system when compared to the white prosecution. Tom knew this and decided that while others, including Atticus and other blacks in Maycomb, thought there was hope in an appeal, that hope may be easier to have when the verdict does not cost one their own life. Tom tried to take the decision of his life out of the hands of the white court and into his own matters, even though his odds were slim to none. He figured trying to escape from prison was more feasible than the courts acquitting a black man in his case. Ultimately he failed at the cost of his life as he was set up to do from the beginning.