Student
Name
Unit
Date
of Submission
The
decision in People of the State of Newyork v Joseph Gibson as relates to social
changes in the United States during that period
Introduction
In
the landmark case of the People of the
State of Newyork v Joseph Gibson, the defendant, an 80 year old man was
indicted for the second degree assault on Helen Shanks, a minor aged below 16
years. This trial which took place in 1919 depicts a number of principles of
criminal law at that point in time. It is notable that there are a numerous of
transformations that have since been witnessed from that time up until
now. The conceptions of crime and
procedural aspects of a criminal trial have experienced great dynamism. The
essence of this paper is to ascertain the implications of this decision on the
social fabric; whether it was influenced by any social changes and if it
subsequently had any impact on the society.
A
brief analysis of facts of the case
The
court was appalled by the unique facts of this case because it seemed like it
was novel in various respects. To start with the age disparity raised eyebrows
of everyone because the assailant was over eighty years while the victim was a
14 year old school girl. Secondly, it emerged later within the proceedings that
the two adverse parties were fond of each other and that they had been meeting
occasionally. Therefore the minor had apparently given consent to these acts
even though this only would not absolve the defendant from criminal liability.[1] It
was also noted that this consent was procured by enticing the girl with money.
Against these plain facts of the case, there is also the overarching social
context which will be subsequently discussed in this paper.
Thesis
Statement
The
decision in People of the State of Newyork was amid a myriad of many social
circumstances and thus cannot be construed to be a reflection of societal
changes in the United States at that time.
The
social context within which the case was decided
The
overriding objective of combating crime is to address a societal problem which
is repugnant to the expectations of all people. Criminal law works to deter abhorrent
conduct in the society. According to sociological jurisprudence, it is
imperative that law conforms to the daily needs of the society and it should
change in equal measure to address societal change.[2]
The period of around 1919 in the United States was marred with a number of
civil upheavals which warranted redefining of the criminal justice system.
This
case was however not reflective of the circumstances strictly suited for rape
during that period. This is because, by 1919, there was a huge outcry from many
people complaining about the wrongful convictions in rape cases. It was alleged
that in many instances children and victims at large fabricated testimonies and
evidence in a bid to falsely implicate men for rape. In fact, there was a great
shift in the perceptions of people in explaining what the root cause of
increased rape cases was. The argument ceased to be paternalistic and it
transformed to blaming the vulnerability of the victims. Owing to these
developments, the judges embraced a punitive approach towards complainants and
in effect even blamed them for their own ordeals.[3]
The
decision in this case did not however take into account the circumstances at
that period because of a number of reasons. The most probable reason for this
eventuality could be the political atmosphere that prevailed at that time. It
was in 1919 when the ‘red summer’[4]
was experienced. In the course of racial violence in these cities, there were
many cases of trans-racial assault in which rape was predominantly perpetuated
by persons of either race against the other. Therefore, there was need to put
an end to all this misgiving. In doing so, the court was inclined towards
convicting the accused person in a bid to deter other people from engaging in
such activities. It is noteworthy that despite there being a great disparity in
the testimonies rendered in court with respect to this case, the court still
found in favor of the victim.
Parties
involved in this case
Depending
on the angle from which you look at it, this dispute depicted a number of
adversaries in light of the circumstances at that time. The first set of
antagonists takes a gender perspective. This was a battle between feminism and
patriarchy. Given the fact that there
had been a great legal and social debate about who was to blame for the upsurge
in rape cases, the court had to consider the outcry of the female caucus as
against the incessant resistance of men. If any decision affecting these two
factions is to be made, the court is always extremely cautious not to appear as
being prejudicial to either.
Another
dimension to the fabric of this case regards the interracial warring that had
been exhibited by the numerous riots in the United States. Any atrocity
committed against a person of an opposite race was always construed as a wider
machination by one race to assert dominance or to act superior over the other.
Therefore, there was a greater perception that the blacks were targeting to
humiliate the whites in this respect. Since the racial temperatures were so hot
at this time, the court was right to intervene and put an end to such
violations of fundamental human rights.
The
third pair of adverse parties could be a classification of the older members of
the society vis-à-vis the extremely young members of the society. This
classification would potentially ignite an ethical debate and my analysis is that
this was reflective in the minds of the judges too. Society has it that old
people are extremely wise and that they are required by morals to offer their
wise counsel to persons younger than them. In this case, it was an absurdity
that the person who would be relied on for advice had allegedly turned the
young girl to his prey.
All
these factors played a significant role in the influencing the reasoning and
the ultimate verdict of the court.
Peculiar
features of the case
As
I have pointed out before, this case was a great voice of defiance to the
widespread advocacy by men against what they called false accusations of rape
against them. This is so unique because even as the medical evidence and oral
testimony of the victim were not in harmony, the court deviated from the social
atmosphere to convict Joseph Gibson. Ideally, if any element of doubt would
have been cast on the evidence, then that would result in a straight acquittal
but this was an isolated case. This gives an insight to the developments of
rights of children because in such case the right to privacy would be given the
first priority at present. That implies that the name of the victim would not
be disclosed at any point in the reported case but back then there was no such
provision.
Conclusion
Whether
the society dictates what the law holds or the law defines what the society
should fortify is a hard question. But what is certain is that the law should
always be in conformity with the needs of the society and even derive its
purpose from the wants of the society. In as much as there was no unified
social approach that can be said that the court employed in giving the verdict
of this case, it is evident that there are many extrinsic circumstances that
the court looked at, aside from the activity in court; before convicting the
accused person. Therefore, to a greater extent, changes in social circumstances
greatly impact the applicability of the law.
REFERENCES
v http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/13/rape-defined-sexual-crime-history
v Pound,
Roscoe. 2000. Jurisprudence. Union,
N.J.: Lawbook Exchange.
v Pound,
Roscoe. 1968. Social control through law. [Hamden]: Archon Books.
[1] It
emerged during the proceedings that this consent was procured through undue
influence. The accused person always promised to give the victim one dollar
every time she undressed.
[2] Pound,
Roscoe. 2000. Jurisprudence. Union, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange. P.219
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/13/rape-defined-sexual-crime-history
[4]
The red summer refers to a period in 1919 where racial riots dominated most
cities of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment