The setbacks in the judicial system
The wise men once said that character is how you treat those who can give you nothing in return. Both authors Mona and Bryan, have one thing in common. They reflect the setbacks in the judicial system and cite examples showing how inhumane some humans can be. From their narratives, victims are judged based on their status quo or how powerful they are connected. By powerful meaning the sort of background they’re raised in or the people in power they are associated with. Bryan drives the point home by stating that capital punishment means them without the capital get the sentence. Mona says in page 2 that within twelve hours, three of the four suspects were making appearances in federal court, about to face charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. So, where was the fourth suspect? Why wasn’t he charged? Why wasn’t he accused in court?
A comparative strategy is applicable based on the fact that the two authors speak their minds from two different eras, yet they both drive the same message home. They have similar feeling concerning the oppression of the poor, and they have the same level of wisdom in putting the message across. Bryan, in just mercy, writes that we are the only country in the world that sentences children to life imprisonment without parole. The same idea is generated by Mona in page 2 when she says Devon, who had just gone along for the ride, got a sentence that eclipsed them all: life without parole. The two authors back up each other they didn’t know each other at the time they published their books, meaning corruption and unfair judgment has been a thorn in the flesh of the Americans for such a long time.
Poverty is not the opposite of wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice. This is the thinking of Bryan, where he feels that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world yet in terms of wealth, the US holds a position among the top richest. The country may be rich in terms of other resources, but when it comes to equality and justice for its citizens, the story on appears on a different script. Mona backs this up in page 3 by saying that this law enacted to sentence drug dealers armed authorities with a hugely powerful weapon for obtaining long prison sentences even in cases with relatively small amounts of drugs. From the narratives, it’s crystal clear that there is an abuse of power whereby people abuse the offices they are entrusted with instead of using their authority to reform the society.
The past cannot define our future. This simple comment from Bryan brings visualization of who we indeed are, away from the judgment and cruelty of the real world. It’s a commentary visualizing an improved version of beauty from ashes. If someone’s past was that of a drug dealer, it doesn’t mean that their entire record is that of doom. Mona stamps this by showing in page three the unfair treatment of Devon whose bad past earned him a life sentence. Bryan further breaks it down by using an example that leaves the ouch feeling. His veteran way of putting a message across leaves no space for comment. In page 6, he cites the case: If a belief is contextual, is it a belief worth holding? Maybe, let’s say you believe that people who commit terrible crimes say, should be immediately condemned to death. What if that person who commits that crime is your kid, your spouse or relative? All of a sudden, the complexity of the situation is clearer. “They are a good human who made a simple mistake.” The only fact that changed in this circumstance is the distance between you and the person committing the crime. When we’re far enough away from the evil that the offender becomes unknown, it’s easier to judge. But when they are familiar to us, and we happen to know their name, their face, the happiness they have brought to our lives and the lives of others, the jobs they worked, and the movies they laughed at, then it becomes much more complicated. We see the good and the bad. But both good and evil is always there, even if the person is just an anonymous criminal to us. So how strong is that belief? Is it worth holding? Or is it reasonable to apply the mercy we would show to mistaken loved ones to everyone else as well?
Both authors have the same thing in mind concerning racism. In page 8, Mona writes that some, but not all, of the demographic shift, was due to the extreme racial disparity in federal prosecutors‘ choices as to whom to charge under the disproportionately punitive crack cocaine laws. Having a black or white skin in colour is a determinant of how long you get for minor offences. Bryan offered a backup in his book by saying Black men are eight times more likely to be killed by police than whites. So, is it a fair world, after all? Does having a specific skin colour determine your lifespan aren’t we all human?
Conclusively, both authors wrote their narratives while worlds apart yet their stories merge, meaning that these are things that happen and are still happening on American soil. Offices ought to protect the people have turned into predators imposing unimaginable sentences. In respect of human life, we somehow join Bryan in saying: The death penalty is not about whether outlaws deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The major question of capital punishment in this country is, do we deserve to kill?”