Simara Garcia-Guillen

Dr. Danielle Morgan

Critical Thinking and Writing

31 October 2019

Psychology’s Role in Equality

There are many causes to an individual’s actions, that stem from their psychological

standings which can affect them in negative ways, causing them to commit unintentional crimes

or sentence ignorant verdicts. In the book, ​Just Mercy​, Bryan Stevenson presents his personal

experiences as a lawyer who represents convicted criminals, to discuss several topics that are

relevant in society and the judicial system. In several instances, he discusses the issues of

discrimination in society, and how the judicidal system can ineffectively use the psychological

aspect to threaten criminal verdicts and to justify their own actions. The American Psychological

Association (APA) makes clear connections between the actions of criminals and their

psychology background in “The Death Penalty in the United States”. Although these connections

are made, the APA clarifies that the criminal justice system uses psychological backgrounds as a

motive to incarcerate a criminal rather than grant mitigation. Stevenson’s ​Just Mercy​ and the

American Psychological Association’s “The Death Penalty in the United States”, both argue that

the psychological aspect is used in an abusive way, creating more injustice and inequality in the

system, rather than defending the actions of criminals.

The perception of what equality means is more positive than the reality of one’s

experiences. Likewise, the way equality is defined in our society and practiced have distinct

meanings as well, based on a single identity, despite individuals having multiple identities. The
 Garcia-Guillen 2

measurement of equality can only be measured based on the previous experiences of the lack of

equality - equality is seen as complete and full today, in comparison to no equality in the 19th

century. Equality is established on the basis of comparing individuals to one another, rather than

creating a non-comparison; in ​Just Mercy​, Stevenson frequently handles cases whose criminals

have psychological impairments or different cognitive limitations. These psychological aspects

make the individual compared to those without psychological issues, creating inequality against

psychologically limited people.

Throughout ​Just Mercy​, Stevenson portrays the harsh sentences of young adults

experiencing mental issues to grasp the reader’s attention and create a call to action, in an

attempt to confront the issue of inequality. The APA’s article reinforces Stevenson’s argument

with the use of reliable and strong statements, demonstrating the court systems’ lack of

acknowledging psychological trauma for individuals. Stevenson chooses to present the most

unfair cases of mental harm, such as that of Avery Jenkins. Jenkins was taken advantage of in the

court as the “lawyers did no investigation of Mr. Jenkins’s history prior to trial [and] trial records

made no reference to [his] mental illness” (Stevenson 197-198). Although the claims made based

on Jenkins actions were accurate about his crimes, Stevenson points out that the court did not

consider his mental disabilities as a means of mitigation for his sentence. The APA enforces the

situation, where they explain that ​“psychological research consistently demonstrates that juries

often misunderstand the concept of mitigation and its intended application (e.g., Haney & Lynch,

1994, 1997; Wiener, Pritchard, & Weston, 1995; Wiener, Hurt, Thomas, Sadler, Bauer &

Sargent, 1998), so that mitigation factors, e.g., the defendant's previous life circumstances,

mental and emotional difficulties and age, have little or no relation to penalty phase verdicts”.
 Garcia-Guillen 3

With his mental disabilities affecting his actions, it brings up the question: How can he be

testified against, considering his actions and multiple backgrounds equally? The court is willfully

ignorant to understand the effect that Jenkin’s mental illness had on his actions. The

psychological research states that the juries often ignore the effect of mental disabilities in a

court case, despite knowing their profound effect on an individual. Ironically, this concept

confirms the inequality present in the justice system, and questions to what extent is the court

system a valid measure of reaching ultimate justice in the United States. Consequently,

Stevenson directs his audience towards mitigation, implying that the audience of his book,

should act upon the mistakes he experienced in the courtroom and learn to ease the suffering of

the convicted.

Similarly, he narrates the horrid issues found in a criminal case with a man named

George Daniel. Clearly having mental issues, the State persuades “the jury that there was nothing

mentally wrong with George, even as he continuously spit in a cup and made loud clucking

noises throughout the trial” (Stevenson 190). Stevenson makes it evident that Daniel had a

mental disability, which the court ignored. By stressing the court’s ignorance, he goes on to say

that Daniel is discriminated against, based on his mental disability. Stevenson directs readers

towards the truth that the judicial system failed to acknowledge by emphasizing how it

deliberately avoids the mental aspect of criminals. It is impossible to equally and justifiably

convict a mentally disabled individual of a crime by using the standards of a person without

those disabilities. The APA argues that the juries ignore the disabilities of an individual, and treat

them not only the same as an individual without those disabilities, but create even harsher

sentences for the disabled, making it extremely unjustified.

 Garcia-Guillen 4

Emphasizing a bigotry towards the minority race, Stevenson emphasizes the extent that

racial discrimination is an issue in the courtroom. The APA, a scientific source, strengthens and

agrees with his argument about the issue of race in the court system. Both sources provide a

potent argument together. In ​Just Mercy,​ the author highlights how a convicted criminal’s

experiences of inequality are based on the biases of race in the judicial system. Stevenson first

introduces the corruption of his conviction saying that “there was no evidence against McMillian

… 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” (Stevenson 34). As his lawyer, he knows the underlying truth despite the

perception of McMillian and is authorized to criticize the false verdicts that officials make based

on their own biases. Stevenson questions the authority of officials who declare a verdict through

the use of their biases. Reiterating this issue in the court, the American Psychological

Association found that “race and ethnicity have been shown to affect the likelihood of being

charged with a capital crime by prosecutors”. Thus, if the judicial system bases its verdicts off of

personal biases of race and ethnicity, then there is no equality due to the inequality of racial

discrimination and percpetion of a single race. Since biases are a psychological component of

individuals, that are expressed unconsciously, unreliable verdicts are made on convicted

criminals. Stevenson argues that prosecutors consciously do not put their unconscious biases

aside, making the psychological aspect of biases increase inequality in the criminal justice

system.

Stevenson goes on to elaborate that there is age discrimination presented in the judicial

system as well, which affects the interpretation of what is justified or not in the judicial system.
 Garcia-Guillen 5

The APA confirms Stevenson’s claims about the discrimination towards juveniles, making his

argument about age inequality more convincing. Referencing to the case of Joe Sullivan, the

lawyer touches on Sullivan’s age and his several identities that make his case more complicated,

while also showing how the ruling is so immoral. Sullivan was described as “quite a dark colored

boy [and] could still only read at a third-grade level, despite the fact that he was thirty-one”

(Stevenson 256/259). Officials tried Sullivan due to his racial background and his age. Stevenson

dwells on the issue that the court system took advantage of Sullivan because he was a child who

was also black. As a Black child, who came from a poor socioeconomic status, the legal system

considered the effects of his identities on his personality as a whole, and declared an even

harsher decree for him; the legal system intentionally sentenced him in a harsher way. Equality

for Sullivan is difficult to define, considering the intersectionality of his identities; the inequality

that he faced from the court was an effect of racial discrimination, as other identities were

disregarded. The APA makes this issue evident by explaining the precautions the judicial system

should take for cases when ​“death penalty prosecutions ... involve persons under 18 (sometimes

as young as 14). [Hence] procedural problems, such as assessing competency, take on particular

importance in cases where the death penalty is applied to juveniles". Stevenson’s short stories in

Just Mercy​ emphasize how the legal system does focus on the importance of age in condemning

individuals, but they wrongly do so, by using it as a means of worse punishment, rather than

mitigation. ​He continues to argue that ultimate equality is non-existent when multiple identities

are used against individuals as a threatening tactic, rather than minimizing the extremity of their

sentences.
 Garcia-Guillen 6

Stevenson ultimately highlights the intersectionality of an individual and its negative

affect on their conviction through the narrative of Marsha Colbey and the case of her stillborn

child. Colbey was convicted primarily by the claims made by a forensic pathologist, “even

though most experts agree that forensic pathologists … are not qualified to estimate survival

chances, the State allowed prosecutors to pursue criminal charges” (Stevenson 231). The State

allows these extreme false claims to ultimately decide the fate of Colbey although it is

unethically justified. The judicial system allowed the death penalty on Colbey based on her

background as a “ poor, prior drug user” (Stevenson 232), and the identities associated with

Colbey’s persona, even when those qualities should have been used to lessen her sentence.

Further explaining the reality of the legal system placing extreme unjustified verdicts, the

American Psychological Association agrees that ​“those who kill ... are more likely to receive the

death penalty, even after differences such as the heinousness of the crime, prior convictions, and

the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator are considered. This is especially true for

African-Americans (e.g., Keil & Vito, 1995; Thomson, 1997) and Hispanic-Americans”. As a

scientific source making claims on legal issues that align with Stevenson’s argument, this further

emphasizes the truth in Stevenson’s claims about the faults of the legal system. This draws the

conclusion that the legal system does not establish equality due to verdicts, based on race, gender

and age, being used in a negative way. Colbey’s​ intersectionalities, the complexity of

connections of social categorizations and identities, were used against her, rather than justifying

her actions in an appropriate manner. Complete equality cannot be achieved because everyone

has different combinations of identity, leading to different types of equality; the court system
 Garcia-Guillen 7

cannot systematically develop a single interpretation of equality, for the multitude of identities

that people have.

There is no such thing as complete equality because people’s actions are not justified

through their backgrounds, including psychological perspectives. Since individuals aren’t made

up of a single identity, they have several identities that make a verdict more complicated to

declare. In the legal system the two perspectives that psychology can affect are the verdicts,

affected by the prosecutors biases, and the psychological background of individuals who commit

crimes. Both sources, by Stevenson and the APA strengthen each other, because they come from

different fields of study, that make similar arguments from those different perspectives. Although

the judicial system is seen as the best legal representation of achieving justice in society, there is

no system that can truly appeal to the benefit of all, due to the unconscious biases that are

deliberately used to justify a perpetrators verdict. For instance, the criminal justice system fails to

acknowledge mitigation for the circumstances of people with disabilities. The interconnectedness

of one’s nature and nurture have a direct effect in the decision-making process in the courtroom

by creating intentional inequality in the reasoning of sentences.

 Garcia-Guillen 8

Works Cited

Stevenson, Bryan. ​Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption.​ Spiegel & Grau, 2014.

American Psychological Association. “The Death Penalty in the United States”. ​Council

Policy Manual​, August 2001, ​https://www.apa.org/about/policy/death-penalty​. Accessed

24 October 2019.