In episode 10 of serial, Koenig talks about Adnan's culture and ethnicity how it affected the jury. At first koenig says “The jurors we spoke to said Adnan’s religion didn’t affect their view of the case.” To be honest I was kind of surprised when I heard this. She then briefly talked about one of the jurors she spoke to who said it interested her at first until she realized Adnan was an american teenager doing normal teenage things. After this Koenig says what I expected her to say about the jury “But when we pressed them a little more, it seems stereotypes about Adnan’s culture were there lurking in the background.” Even in society today, most people still strongly judge people on looks, culture, ethnicity and religion. As much as we say
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In an attempt to counter the racist claims of the defense, the jury was selected and was mostly African American females (Gaines 2001). The district attorney of Los Angeles believed that an all white jury would be ineffective if Simpson were to be found guilty (Thernstrom & Fetter 1996). This outcome of the jury selection upset the Caucasian population because they felt as though the jury selection gave Simpson the upper hand in the trial regardless of the fact that the jury was majority female. The defense counsel was able to control the jury, in a sense through instilling in their minds that the LAPD was in fact racist. At the trial’s conclusion approximately 83% of blacks believed that Simpson was guilty, whereas only 37% of whites believed that Simpson was guilty (Thernstrom & Fetter 1996). These allegations also pushed the evidence collected from the crime to be discredited as well.
However, in addition to natural biases from the jurors of Adnan’s case, there was an overwhelming amount of islamophobia and other cultural biases from multiple jurors. One of those jurors, William Owens, stated, “I don’t feel religion was why he did what he did. It may have been culture, but I don’t think it was religion… I know in some cultures women are second class citizens and maybe that’s what it was…” In William’s comment it is clearly seen that despite denying Adnan’s religion playing any role, he is using the word culture as a synonym of religion. Furthermore, During the bail proceedings, Vicki Wash, the prosecutor, tried to influence this bias by making completely outlandish statements such as, “It’s our position your honour that if you issue a bail, then you are issuing him a passport under these circumstances to flee the country.” And, “We have information from our investigation that the defendant has an uncle in Pakistan, and he has indicated that he can make people disappear.” She later apologized in a letter to the judge withdrawing her statements and admitting the falsity of her claims. That letter was unseen by the jury. Ultimately her testimony made them confirm any cultural or religious biases they had against
Where we originate from and our environment we are raised in deeply influences our identity and perception of the world. Therefore, a jury is unable to look at cases objectively and will be influenced by previous experiences consistently. Although certain requirements are necessary to participate within a jury, background checks are not effective in revealing prejudice against groups of people. Traveling back to the midst of the civil war, finding a case of voiceless individuals is simple. One that still is of importance to this day includes Dred Scott. He was in fact an African American slave, however his skin color is not of importance, but rather the fact that he found himself in a free state. The jury ultimately ruled against him due to the completely bias environment . The jury stated that laws are state specific, and basically overlook rights of individuals regardless of the state they are from (which was a slothful way of saying, we don’t care for your case because of where you are from). Despite the fact that more than 100 years have passed, we still notice certain cases take into consideration the origin of a suspect; From the style of language they use or the friends and family that may be in the courtroom to support them… rather than focusing on the above-mentioned aspects shouldn’t our jurors acknowledge reliable facts compared to personal
Adnan is a normal 17 year old teenager at woodlawn high school. He was the average muslim kid, in his parents eye’s he was a good muslim kid that never disappoints his family.at school adnan syed was also a normal american teenager. He was very popular at school and he experimented in the typical crazy things teenager do even though it's against his family and religious beliefs. one day adnan's ex girlfriend was found murdered. Adnan was soon after convicted of murdering hae lee but some people believe he didn't do it. Mainly because some the accusation that were brought up in his case was inconclusive.adnan is syed is innocent of hae's murder because he doesn't portray and motives of a jealous ex-boyfriend also the timeline doesn't really
Juror 10 divides people by their race and wealth making him a very biased man. Considering that he is a biased man he is very biased against the young man in trial. The boy comes from the slums and was a victim to domestic violence from the age of 5. The boy also comes from a different race which
In act two, Juror Eleven includes a remarkable statement about strength and fairness in decision-making. Eleven states, “…we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons in why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 333). Since Juror Eleven was a refugee from Europe, he shows that since he finally is able to disagree or share his opinion, that it should not affect the outcome of
Did Adnan Syed really kill Hae Min Lee? In the podcast Serial, Sarah Koenig analyzes the murder case of Hae Min Lee, which took place on January 13, 1999. Adnan Syed, the main suspect of her murder, was imprisoned after losing the case. Even after trial, Adnan’s friends and family don’t believe that he murdered Hae. Adnan Syed is not guilty of the murder of Hae Min Lee.
However, I do not believe that an individual will be able to completely ignore their biological or social race, and this was seen during the O.J. Simpson trial. Opinions on the O.J. Simpson trial were primarily segregated on racial grounds. During the trial, one important concern amongst spectators was the neutrality of the jurors, as the composition was predominately black. Many white spectators feared that these jurors would not be impartial within the case, due to the levels of black overincarceration and biases within the judicial systems that favoured white individuals, that could have led to increased levels of sympathy, empathy or racial identification. Due to the separate socialization amongst black individuals and white individuals,
During the court case, an impartial jury was selected resulting in a ratio of 7 out of 12 jurors who were of African American descent. This was an improper pick for the jury as it was not fully diverse which would have skewed the results. Sarah Koenig refers back to trial and says, “Jay seems like the underdog. It’s Baltimore….Jay probably comes off as a nice young man and this white lady is yelling at him”(8). During the trial, Adnan’s lawyer, Christina Gutierrez was seen yelling at the top of her lungs at Jay to reveal the real truth out of him.
In addition to this concept, Juror #10 shows that past experiences and person bias influence the thoughts and opinions of a person. Juror 10 segregates and divides people stereotypically into “us” being him and the middle class and with “them” being the people of the slums, a different race, or a different upbringing. As a result of these thoughts, Juror 10 was bias towards the young Puerto Rican man on trial because the young man was born in the slums, had a difficult childhood, and a troubled past. Since the boy was Puerto Rican, a different race from Juror 10, Juror 10 consistently antagonizes the boy because it fits his description of “them”. “Look these people are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed…they’re
This participant is showing the influence stereotypes had over their judgement of the crime and the defendant. They show that they do believe in stereotypes and that this man falls into that category which further predisposed them to placing a harsher sentence. Therefore, Baldwin and McConville (1979) did have a valid point and that juries do easily fall victim to stereotypes and how can they not when it is human nature? For humans it is very difficult to hold unconditional positive regard (Rodgers, 1957) for someone who they do not know and are up in court for such crimes, once their first impressions are made, it is subsequently harder to change this and so, if they are unattractive or unclean then they will almost certainly have their own perception of this ‘type’ of person, and might not necessarily be favourable. For instance, in the case of Amanda Knox, although she was not deemed as unattractive, rather she was seen as attractive there was a presumption of
Because, truth be told, I knew it was bound to happen. Sooner or later we were going to lose someone. I just didn't expect that someone would be her. Her, the one who followed the rules. The one who'd nag at the rest of us for falling behind. But that comes to show, you can never get too comfortable. She did and because of it she died.
He didn’t flee, nor did he immediately crumble. Already better than whence he came, better than the bitch he’d taken between his loins. But she knew better, knew him well enough even from their single meeting. Stronger than his ilk he might have been, he would not be strong enough. Tine had had no purpose, a would-be jack of all trades without the trades. And so had this one fallen into the trap of complacency. This one did not deserve an honorable death, and would get one neither from her nor by his own efforts.
I went outside and I saw my flag waving across the sky. I felt my chest swell with pride when I heard someone ranting on the street hearing that made me happy. I heard someone yell at him and we got into a swearing match. I grin spread across my face. I remember hearing that in the middle east people could not talk like we do. I went on my phone and saw a news story about how a man started ranting and raving at a press conference with the President and was escorted out of the building. I thought that I could see him across the street. This was a happy feeling for me knowing that this had happened. I could see that there was a newspaper story about how a congressman was terrible and how he should be and had to be hated. I liked that we could say that.