Just Mercy Analysis
In economics, a compensatory test is applied for “evaluating public policy choices” (Kenyon 258). The test compares existing policies to suggested policies and the suggestion is only accepted if the prospective gainers can compensate prospective losers without leaving any individual worse off (Chipman). So, what if this test were used to evaluate “policies involving the gain or loss of human life” (Kenyon 258)? In such a scenario, it may be proposed that society could only continue to benefit because the selected policies would only be those that positively advanced society. In modern America, this method has not yet been successfully applied to social law, which leaves the country in parasitic, state. While the term “parasite” may seem to
…show more content…
His court-appointed lawyer is white with “political aspirations” and George is also tried before an entirely white jury (158). The jury “convicted George of rape and murder . . . [and] sentenced [him] to death . . . [there was] no appeal because his family didn’t have the money to pay for it” (158). Years after George is electrocuted to death, “a white man from a prominent family confessed on his deathbed to killing the girls” (159). Whether or not George’s lawyer or the “prominent” murderer were aware of their stances as a parasite by exploiting George as a host, they were both subconsciously assessing their life’s worth at a higher value than George’s; not only did this result in an unfair trial, but also in the death of an innocent …show more content…
The corrupt profit in this situation because the trial may conclude sooner and, usually, in the “parasite’s” favor. The “host”, on the other hand, loses because he/she may face unjust trial, arrest, or punishment. In the novel Just Mercy, Monroe Country’s newest sheriff, Tom Tate, an inexperienced law enforcement official trying to gain prestige, “faced a seemingly unsolvable murder and intense public pressure” four short months into his term (Stevenson 33). Rather than continuing an “unsolvable” man-hunt for the truth, Tate, “decided to arrest [innocent] Walter McMillian based primarily on Ralph Myer’s [false] allegation” (47). Later in the novel, Myers admits to Stevenson that he was pressed to testify falsely because “the sheriff and the ABI had threatened [him] with the death penalty” if he refused (136). Furthermore, Stevenson’s attempt to object and reverse the arrest of McMillian was too late to generate change because “the arrest had been too long in the making [for Sherriff Tate] to admit yet another failure” (52). Whether or not Tate was aware of his stance as a parasite by exploiting both Myers and McMillian as hosts, Tate was subconsciously assessing his life at a higher
His court-appointed lawyer is white with “political aspirations” and George is also tried before an entirely white jury (158). The jury “convicted George of rape and murder . . . [and] sentenced [him] to death . . . [there was] no appeal because his family didn’t have the money to pay for it” (158). Years after George is electrocuted to death, “a white man from a prominent family confessed on his deathbed to killing the girls” (159). Whether or not George’s lawyer or the “prominent” murderer were aware of their stances as a parasite by exploiting George as a host, they were both subconsciously assessing their life’s worth at a higher value than George’s; not only did this result in an unfair trial, but also in the death of an innocent …show more content…
The corrupt profit in this situation because the trial may conclude sooner and, usually, in the “parasite’s” favor. The “host”, on the other hand, loses because he/she may face unjust trial, arrest, or punishment. In the novel Just Mercy, Monroe Country’s newest sheriff, Tom Tate, an inexperienced law enforcement official trying to gain prestige, “faced a seemingly unsolvable murder and intense public pressure” four short months into his term (Stevenson 33). Rather than continuing an “unsolvable” man-hunt for the truth, Tate, “decided to arrest [innocent] Walter McMillian based primarily on Ralph Myer’s [false] allegation” (47). Later in the novel, Myers admits to Stevenson that he was pressed to testify falsely because “the sheriff and the ABI had threatened [him] with the death penalty” if he refused (136). Furthermore, Stevenson’s attempt to object and reverse the arrest of McMillian was too late to generate change because “the arrest had been too long in the making [for Sherriff Tate] to admit yet another failure” (52). Whether or not Tate was aware of his stance as a parasite by exploiting both Myers and McMillian as hosts, Tate was subconsciously assessing his life at a higher