So, what's the deal?

In today’s society, the issue of social justice seems to weigh heavy on the minds of young scholars and social activists. It seems that in the 21st century, America would have most of its problems solved by now, but unfortunately, there are many areas of our country which are in need of great reform. One of these areas is our court system. Citizens can often times be oblivious to the truth of what takes place in America’s courts, where justice is supposed to prevail. However, this is not always the case. One particular problem within the criminal justice system which hinders accurate endowment of justice is the influence of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing. Certain factors may blind the jury, or affect the representation of the defendants, providing for unequal treatment and sentencing. One particular case which clearly expresses this issue occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993, when three teenage boys were wrongfully convicted of murder.
One area of prejudice prevalent in our society today is the issue of socioeconomic status influencing criminal sentencing, including factors such as educational status, employment, family characteristics, income, poverty, social class, and others. This issue can be seen in our court system through two main aspects; the representation given to defendants, and the views held by the jury. I want to point out the injustices of separating criminal defendants by socioeconomic factors, resulting in unfair sentencing.
If a defendant is unable to afford a lawyer, the government provides them with representation. While most people see this as beneficial, it can often times result in the opposite effect. In most cases, a person who cannot afford a lawyer can be classified has having a low income, and possibly a low educational status and social class. Based on this, the defendant is automatically classified. The representation provided to these individuals is not of the same quality as hired lawyers, and in turn, produce less desired results. They work less hard, care less for their defendant, and don’t put the effort in required to prove innocence; they simply meet their quota and call it a day. This unequal treatment of defendants based on their social status results in numerous wrongly convicted individuals.
At the same time, a jury can view a defendant based on their socioeconomic status, giving them a prejudiced and impartial mindset, ultimately resulting in an unfair sentence. In some cases, the defendant may act a certain way based on low educational status of family characteristics which provide the jury with inaccurate views of the defendant, also resulting in false ideas and a wrongfully imposed sentence. This could easily have been true in the case of the “West Memphis Three”, as the jury was filled with inaccurate ideas based on low education and unusual behavior of the defendants.
While socioeconomic status can greatly affect the resulting sentence of a defendant, some critics believe there is only weak correlation between these two factors. This presents a problem in the issue as people seem to be blinded by the presence of prejudice in today’s society. While certain people try to cover up the issue, it will only continue to get worse. Just recently, certain racial issues have started to come about like they have in the past. The major case in the news right now, the case of the Jena Six, deals with a new rise of racial prejudice. Along with that, there have been certain references to an item which represents racial intimidation. In the New York Metropolitan area, there have been at least seven incidents in which nooses have been draped around towns, referencing racial hate.
This rise in prejudice in our society is something which needs to be addressed and taken care of before anything gets worse. Thankfully, after following the case of the West Memphis Three, there has been a turn for the better. This case sums up everything I have been arguing into one example. These three teenage boys, convicted of committing the crime solely based on their gothic appearance, low social status, poor income, and a biased jury, are the victims of the injustice set forth by our criminal justice system. They were found guilty, justified by poor evidence and witnesses, but due to recent breakthroughs in the case, the truth may now have a chance to be revealed. After years of fighting for justice, the defendants have finally been granted a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
While some cases like this are finally beginning to receive justice, other issues are on the rise. Whether old or new, the issue of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing raises awareness of the injustices which continue to occur today.