Introduction and Analysis of Chapters 1-4

Hello reader!

 Welcome to my blog, where I will be documenting my reading of Bryan Stevenson's novel Just Mercy! From what I have read this far, this is a deeply thought-provoking and interesting book, and I am excited to share my thoughts and analysis with you as we take a closer look at the flaws within America's legal system through the perspective of criminal defense lawyer Bryan Stevenson.

Bryan begins his novel with a story, which drew me in from the get-go. While I was expecting raw facts and cases stated with minimal emotion and voice, I soon found that I was very mistaken in this preconception. He introduces the reader to the very beginnings of his career as a lawyer, at the prestigious Harvard Law School. He happened upon his passion for law as somewhat of a coincidence; he had previously studied philosophy in college, but changed his course after the realization that he would not be able to make a living as a philosopher. I found this section easy to relate to as a high school student looking down the long road of decisions that I have yet to make. It was reassuring to see that Bryan, too, had questions about what he wanted to do with his life, and that he was able to successfully change his course of action even after pursuing a degree in a different field. From there on, Bryan's love for criminal justice grew. He writes that:

"The distance [he] experienced in [his] first year of law school made [him] feel lost. Proximity to the condemned, to people unfairly judged; that was what guided [him] back to something that felt like home" (14).

This serves as a kind of turning point in the novel, as he then begins his analysis of how unfair America's legal justice system is, particularly to those of color. Throughout this introductory section on pages 14 through 16, he uses a series of sentences beginning with the word "we". I found this to be an important stylistic decision on his part, because it made the issue into something that the entirety of America should be concerned with, because the nation as a whole has played a role in how far it has strayed from the path of true justice. This struck me as being particularly influential because it establishes Bryan as being an American citizen, and therefore qualifies him to educate about the flaws of our legal system today. Within this section, there is a line that I find to be shockingly true about American society, and yet something that I have never heard put into words:

"We've institutionalized policies that reduce people to their worst acts and permanently label them 'criminal,' 'murderer,' 'rapist,' 'thief,' 'drug dealer,' 'sex offender,' 'felon'-- identities that cannot change regardless of the circumstances of their crimes or any improvements they might make in their lives" (15). 

I think that the reason I have never heard this truth vocalized is because it is from the perspective of someone whose job is to see the other side of arguments, something that we struggle with in today's society. We are taught to label people and to see them as what we label them, rather than look deeper into the complexities that make them who they are, beyond what society has pre-determined them to be. This was a very crucial point that Bryan made within this section, because the usage of "we" is a subtle way of calling America out on their behavior, without directly placing blame. He says "we" rather than "you" because he does not want to separate himself from the society that he has grown up in, and instead makes it a nation-wide issue that he believes we as Americans need to address. I strongly agree with his assessment of this issue because I have definitely seen this behavior in my own life, where people are labeled as one thing but are actually completely different than what their label implies.

We are then introduced to Walter McMillian, a black man who has been put on death row for murder. This case highlights a flaw in our legal system where our judgment may be flawed in the sentencing of certain criminals based on their past actions.

In the South in the late 1900s, there was still a strong fear of interracial affairs, and it appeared as though Walter had had such an affair with a married white woman, Karen Kelly. This made him a person of interest in the eyes of the police, and put him under significant judgment and scrutiny within the community. Later in life, Karen became involved with selling drugs with a white man named Ralph Myers, who was then involved with the murder of Vickie Pittman. Seeing that the police were desperate for an arrest, Myers admitted that he was involved in the Pittman murder, and that Karen and Walter McMillian were his accomplices. He also falsely testified that Walter had previously killed Ronda Morrison, a murder of a white woman that had been unsolved for months. Multiple tests and evidence revealed that Walter had not been involved with Ralph Myers, including the fact that Myers could not pick Walter out of  a lineup of several African American men, and yet he was still pronounced as guilty. Bryan Stevenson then ties this whole messy ordeal into one key issue in America's legal system today by writing that

"...there was no evidence against McMillian-- no evidence except that he was an African American man involved in an adulterous interracial affair, which meant he was reckless and possibly dangerous, even if he had no prior criminal history and a good reputation. Maybe that was evidence enough" (34).

This case provides a perfect example of how biased our social justice system can be towards minorities. I was in shock when reading this section, because of how the police pitched the word of a white man who was a proven criminal against that of a local, hard-working African American man whose only involvement with the law was during an interracial affair, and that they believed the lies of the white man instead. It is simply unfair that the police were so desperate for an arrest that they set aside all solid evidence just for an accusation about someone who they did not feel kindly about.

Whatever happened to "liberty and justice for all"? Have we completely strayed from our roots and decided that a false arrest is better than no arrest at all?

I think that one of the main reasons that Bryan's writing style is so effective at making his point heard is the way that he intertwines his thoughts and statistics on the inequalities of the legal system with personal stories that prove his point in a real-world manner. Statistics can only go so far at making an argument, but Bryan has the personal experiences to show how they apply to real people and how it has affected their lives. He repeats this format throughout the chapters-- he begins with a story to pique the audiences interest, and then finishes it with a statistic or an analysis that draws the point home.

One such discussion that I found to be surprising was during his discussion of a case that resulted in the judge "overriding" the life sentence that was determined by the court and changing it to a death sentence. He then speaks to how common this practice has become, by including the statistic that

"Since 1976, judges in Alabama have overridden jury sentencing verdicts in capital cases 111 times. In 91 percent of these cases, judges replaced life verdicts from juries with death sentences" (70).

I actually had no idea that it was even possible for judges to override sentences, and personally I find that notion to be absolutely ridiculous. The point of holding court with a jury is to get the general opinion from a group of random people who have no relation to the case or those who are involved in it. It is counter intuitive that at the end of the day it is still the judges decision, particularly when said decision results in either life or death. 

All in all, the first 92 pages of Just Mercy left me seriously reconsidering my current view of the American justice system (although I really didn't know too much about it in the first place!), and I am intrigued and excited to continue reading.