Socioeconomic Status in Criminal Sentencing

In today’s criminal justice system, while society expects authority, accuracy and professionalism, there are many aspects of justice not being carried out. The court system in America still has many flaws, despite its ongoing reform and improvement. One of the problems within the criminal justice system which is in need of discussion and amendment is the sentencing of criminal defendants in relation to their socioeconomic status. Poor defendants who are not able to pay for legal representation are often provided with unwilling or incompetent lawyers by the state, proving to be an injustice based on wealth. Recently in Alabama, it was concluded that “13 innocent people had almost been executed, in some cases because of dismal defenses mounted by incompetent, poorly paid lawyers”. Other times the problem may not lie within the lawyer, but in the jury which is deciding the conviction. In a study done by students of the University of Albany’s School of Criminal Justice, it was revealed that “defendant attributes affect punishment decisions and perceptions of guilt…negative perceptions of defendant attributes (e.g., low socioeconomic status) can bias juror decisions. Defendants may be evaluated not on the evidence presented, but on whether or not the defendant possesses negatively perceived attributes”. While some individuals try to refute this idea by claiming a weak relationship between socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing, there is clearly no argument in favor of this proposition. I am focused on raising awareness for this unjustice, aiming to spark a change for reform.
One particular issue which represents the injustice given to people based on socioeconomic status is the case of the "West Memphis Three" which occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. I will be focusing on this issue as a whole, while explaining the issues represented in this case.