Mr Johnson Injustice

761 Words4 Pages
The Injustice of Justice In September of 2003, four males from Houston, Texas, brutally assaulted an African-American male by the name of Mr. Johnson. The four males were all of mid-to-late twenties and Mr. Johnson was of the age of 46 at the time. The African-American, mentally disabled (prior to the assault), resident of Houston, was “left for dead,” beaten unconscious, and is currently hardly able to walk or speak (Witt). After a first, biased, unrighteous, jury ruling an ineffective sentence, a non-chauvinistic Jury assigned all four of the assailants an amount in order to compensate Mr. Johnson for their crimes, of which, two of the criminals were acquitted due to deals made prior to the trial; without a severe, just, punishment- equating…show more content…
However, this does not equate to his worse condition. It took the jury of 12 only 3 hours to decide unanimously, and potentially, without local bias, that the crime against Mr. Johnson deserved more punishment (Witt). Two of the men were required to pay $3.6 million, while the other two, 21 year-old Chadwick Stone, and 22 year-old Wesley Owens, were held liable for a total of $1.8 million. Stone and Owens, however, were not required to pay the ruling of the civil court because they had made a “deal to settle” prior to the trial (Witt). Mr. Hicks felt no remorse regarding the entire situation, believing, like his mother, that Billy Ray Johnson is now “better off” than he was before (Witt). Their opinion, to an extent, is understandable because he was roaming the streets, and now he is in a nursing home. However, one must consider his current inability to speak or walk, and the pain he suffered because of the violent crime. Mr. Hicks does not comprehend how his abominable crime is morally wrong. –However, if he does understand, and he is jovial about the situation, are his opinions justified? It is not justified to commit theft, assess a…show more content…
The crime was considered a hate crime by “many Black residents of Linden,” however; regardless, the act was of unnecessary violence and brutality (Witt). The case was biased due to the boys’ escape of “serious punishment for the crime in a town where they were praised as ‘good ol’ boys’ by many whites.” The influence of the society’s past opinions of the criminals led to an unfair court sentence and inequality to the justice being served (Witt). There are many solutions that could have compensated for the inequality. As the men have taken away Mr. Johnson’s freedom, it is right to take away their freedom. Incarceration would be the best and, with regards to our laws, the most effective ruling to establish a fair justification. However, as it stands, in the ineffective ruling against the assailants on Billy Ray Johnson, potentially harmful, merciless criminals were, and still are, allowed to walk the streets because of a biased, faulted jury, assumed deals prior to legitimate trials, and injustice of inequality and
Open Document