In this project, we learnt about the principles of justice that uphold Australia’s legal system, such as the presumption of innocence, an impartial judiciary, and the right to legal representation. I studied the case of Rubin Carter, and analysed how these principles were both upheld and violated in this case. After writing an essay on the topic, we were required to incorporate feedback and edit the essay so that it was fit for online publication. This essay is the end result of that editing process. It demonstrates my ability to take feedback, and to refine a piece of written work to produce a professional result.
Rubin Carter was a black man that was supposedly wrongfully convicted of triple homicide committed in 1966 by two black men believe to be him and a friend. On June 16th of 1966 two black men were spotted running from the Lafayette bar and grill after gunshots were heard. 3 people were killed and one survived before dying a month after the incident. Rubin was sent to court on June 29th of 1967 and there he was sent to prison by and jury of 12 white male jurors. Alfred bello was a small-time criminal that turned himself in after robbing the bar of the murders and was offered a sympathetic sentence if he testified that he saw Rubin Carter commit the murders. The principle of Equality before the law, the right to a fair trial and impartiality and independence of the jury were all compromised to a certain extent however the right to a reasonable appeal was upheld due to him being granted 3 appeals in total.
The principle of equality before the law was violated because a lot of the trial and the arrest was based on racism and Rubin being black. In the trial, Rubin’s case was decided by a jury of 12 white male jurors who already wanted him sentenced because of his African American race. The principle means that everybody, no matter their race, religion or ethnicity etc. must be treated equally in the court of law, therefore this principle was violated because he was treated differently due to his race of African American. A way of fixing this is to have a multi-cultural and non-biased jury in all cases having a judge only trial in cases where if it needed.
His right to a fair trial was compromised horrendously because his trial was unfair from the beginning. This principle means that everybody goes into the court room with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the jury can only make their decision based on what is presented in a court session. The jury must not go into the court room with any assumptions or opinions. When everyone went into the court room for Rubin’s case, they all had opinions and knew what the outcome that they wanted was. So really in this case there was no point for even having a trial. This is why in this case the principle of the right to a fair trial was compromised to a horrible extent. To fix this we must go into court with the presumption of innocence and base the decision off only the information presented in the court.
In court the jury must be independent and speak on what they believe, not go with the crowd and be impartial to things they have heard outside of the court room. In this case the jury was not impartial and used information, possibly opinions, heard outside of the court room. The jurors were not independent and would have listened to what other people said with their opinions on the case and used this to make their decision on what they wanted and the decision of guilty in court. Ways to fix this include getting better jurors for the job and not letting much information about future cases out.
Even though the three other principles were compromised Rubin’s right to a reasonable appeal was however upheld because after 10 years of prison time he was granted an appeal after Alfred Bello recanted his testimony and said he lied to receive a lenient sentence from the police. In 1976 he was granted the appeal however he was unsuccessful and was sent back to prison until 1985 when he once again appealed, and a federal judge overturned his convictions, and the previous trials were deemed racist. This principle means you can appeal for release if you have reasonable grounds for an appeal. Rubin was granted these appeals and was released after one in 1985. We can keep this going by having a certain standard for what is considered reasonable in court.
In closing, Rubin Carter’s case was an unfair and unjust case due to the three principles being compromised and only one being upheld. The main reason all the principles of justice were compromised were because of racism which is something that needs to still be fixed in today’s society. Justice was compromised and violated in this case to a high extent and should be changed and fixed in the ways I have suggested. It was also compromised by the police and Alfred Bello for the unfair and untrue testimony from him when he told the court that he saw Rubin committing the murders even though he really didn’t.