Various categories of crimes are met with corresponding punishments; however, it is widely recognised that the criminal justice system exhibits significant unfairness globally. This arises from multiple factors.
In this article, I will examine the systemic flaws within the judicial system and courts that undermine public trust and create cycles of inequality. The discussion will focus on the impact of media representation, individual biases, and the disparities evident in different cases, with particular emphasis on the case of the Menendez brothers.
The criminal justice system’s goal is to maintain equity and fairness by imposing the appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. It has been repeatedly demonstrated, nevertheless, that this is untrue. In the courts, race and ethnic heritage are significant factors. Five times as many Black Americans are behind bars as White Americans. Despite making up only 13% of the US population, black Americans are about 40% of those incarcerated. Black Americans are nearly four times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though drug usage rates are equal across racial groups. Court judges are typically middle-aged, white males with affluent backgrounds and deeply held stereotypes. This has a significant impact on how a criminal trial turns out.
Race is one of the most important elements influencing judicial decisions and criminal trial outcomes. However, there are a few situations that are unrelated to race. The Menendez brothers’ case has been known since the 1990s, but it has grown in popularity following the release of the Netflix series ‘Monsters’. They murdered their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, who had abused them sexually, physically, and emotionally throughout their lives. They were convicted in 1996 and sentenced to two life sentences with no prospect of release. This case has sparked heated debate in the public, with some stating they were victims and did not deserve to be imprisoned, while others claim they are cold-blooded murderers who deserve to be punished. The Menendez brothers were actual victims, with no way out of their parents’ entrapment. This case exposes the inequities in the legal system. Over 50 witnesses testified in court to defend the brothers. Still, the judge overruled their abuse because he argued that men could not be sexually molested, demonstrating significant gender imbalance. The prosecution strongly suspected the brothers were lying and had killed for money. Following up on Ryan Murphy’s Netflix series about them, they attacked the brothers by presenting them as liars and violent. It spoiled privileged children while making the parents appear to be the victims. After watching it, the brothers disagreed with this series because of the number of mistakes, so they made their documentary, exposing the truth for the first time in 36 years. The case is now trending on social media due to the Netflix series, but the arguments against the brothers have increased dramatically due to their unfavourable portrayal.
https://www.biography.com/crime/menendez-brothers-murder-case-facts
It can be rightfully argued that the Menendez brothers were killed in self-defence and that their sentence of life in prison is unfair. I’ve decided to compare this case to a recent one in 2021. Azamat Iskaliev, a Russian man, murdered his wife in 2021, returned from the Russia-Ukraine war, and fatally stabbed his new girlfriend. The court condemned him to only 9 years in prison, but he was released after a couple of years with a pardon for his wartime service. Where is justice for the victims here? Two innocent women perished, and their perpetrator received only a two-year sentence.
How is it possible that two brothers who kill in self-defence get two life sentences with no chance of parole, but a man who kills out of anger due to rejection only serves 2 years?
https://amp.censor.net/en/video_news/3513865/geroyi_svo_z_nojem
Despite these inequalities, wealth also plays a significant role in the courts. The cash bail system further highlights socioeconomic bias. About 75% of people held in U.S. jails are awaiting trial, many because they cannot afford bail. Furthermore, charismatic and persuasive barristers have been proven to win trials. Wealthy defendants can hire an experienced barrister, giving them a better chance of a more lenient sentence and can often secure their release pre-trial. In contrast, poorer defendants who are unable to pay are forced to remain incarcerated, regardless of whether they’re guilty or innocent.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pretrial.html
This article revealed a system that disproportionately punishes offenders. The courts are tougher on you if you are an ethnic minority; they don’t believe you because of your gender, they are lenient on you because you served in the war despite taking away innocent lives, and they base their reliance and decisions on money. It has proved that justice is genuinely impartial to race, class, gender and background.
By Casey M
Winchmore School Newsroom