We all rely on the court system to help us attain our freedom whenever we were wrongfully accused of various offences. This could only be achieved if individuals were subjected to a fair trial. In Kareem’s case, it was important that he be subjected to a more neutral jury to tackle his case (Fultz, 2014; Della, 2016). One way through which this could have been achieved was if the jury that was charged with handling Kareem’s case was comprised of neutral students and instructors at the university other than the professional judges. This would help the jury to arrive at a more reasonable verdict concerning Kareem’s case. Integrating students and some of the instructors from the university as part of the panel of judges would help with the case in the sense that these individuals would help the jury to understand Kareem’s personality having stayed with him for a greater part of their lives at the university. As such, the jury would have to rely much on the negative sentiments that were conveyed through the media about Kareem and the atrocities that he might have committed.
It is the duty of the judicial system in any state to make sure that individuals were protected from any form of harm be it wrongful arrest and detention or harassment. However, denying the defendant a change of venue for his trial denied him a ‘level playing field.’ Consequentially, it was more likely that Kareem would be exposed to the danger of physical and mental torture once he was detained for a crime he might have not committed. The judge should have never denied Linda’s request to have Kareem’s case dealt with in a different locality with a different set of judges (Fultz, 2014). This is because in this way Kareem’s case would have been dealt with in a more understanding or reasonable manner. After all, based on all that had been exhibited about Kareem through various media outlets, the inhabitants of Kind Haven had already formulated their own understanding of who Kareem was, a criminal who deserved nothing than a life sentence or a death sentence depending on the judges who were to handle his case (Della, 2016). The same thoughts and feelings were bound to surface even in court if Kareem’s case were to be handled in Kind Haven. Subsequently, there is no way that one could say that Kareem would attain the justice he truly deserved throughout his entire trial process if his case were to be handled in Kind Haven.
Liberty, life and property
The fifth amendment of the constitution protects individuals from being deprived of their property, life and liberty without abiding by the due process of the law. This is something that could be witnessed from the manner in which Kareem’s case was tackled. The parties involved seemed less concerned about the value of fighting for the truth in tackling the case. It seemed as though the jury’s concern was in closing up the case as opposed to punishing the actual perpetrators of various crimes committed in the society.
Nonetheless, all through the pre-trial motions at no time was Kareem permitted to give his side of the story in his defense (Fultz, 2014). It was important that Kareem be allowed to present his argument before the jury. Perhaps, in this way, he would have been in a better position of convincing members of the jury that he was innocent of all that he had been accused of by the prosecutor (Della, 2016). Besides, he was the victim of circumstances. Therefore, instead of the jury focusing their attention on doing everything in their power to make sure that he was convicted of a crime he did not commit the jury should look at how they could deal with some of the atrocities that faced minority groups such as wrongful accusations just like in his case. Most all, it was important for the judges to rely on concrete evidence in passing judgment in any case.
Della, C. (2016). Due process of law beyond the state. Place of publication not identified: Oxford University Press.
Fultz, T. (2014). Inside the courtroom: Chapter 3. Module III.