株式会社極東書店トップ ＞ 商品一覧 ＞ Jury Discrimination : The Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and a Grassroots Fight for Racial Equality in Mississippi.
商品詳細
Jury Discrimination : The Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and a Grassroots Fight for Racial Equality in Mississippi. 陪審差別－最高裁、世論、ミシシッピでの 人種的平等のための民衆の闘争
・ISBN 978-0-8203-3002-0 2010 cloth US$ 129.95
￥30,446.- (税込) ※（※）価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
・ISBN 978-0-8203-4030-2 2011 paper US$ 36.95
￥8,657.- (税込) ※（※）価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
| 著者・編者 | Waldrep, Christopher, |
|---|---|
| シリーズ | Studies in the Legal History of the South |
| 出版社 | (U. Georgia Pr., US) |
| ページ数 | 328 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | ＜573-1100＞ |
解説
In 1906 a white lawyer named Dabney Marshall argued a case before the Mississippi Supreme Court demanding the racial integration of juries. He carried out a plan devised by Mississippi's foremost black lawyer of the time: Willis Mollison. Against staggering odds, and with the help of a friendly newspaper editor, he won. How Marshall and his allies were able to force the court to overturn state law and precedent, if only for a brief period, at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court is the subject of Jury Discrimination, a book that explores the impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on America's civil rights history.
Christopher Waldrep traces the origins of Americans' ideas about trial by jury and provides the first detailed analysis of jury discrimination. Southerners' determination to keep their juries entirely white played a crucial role in segregation, emboldening lynchers and vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan. As the postbellum Congress articulated ideals of national citizenship in civil rights legislation, most importantly the Fourteenth Amendment, factions within the U.S. Supreme Court battled over how to read the amendment: expansively, protecting a variety of rights against a host of enemies, or narrowly, guarding only against rare violations by state governments. The latter view prevailed, entombing the amendment in a narrow interpretation that persists to this day.
Although the high court clearly denounced the overt discrimination enacted by state legislatures, it set evidentiary rules that made discrimination by state officers and agents extremely difficult to prove. Had these rules been less onerous, Waldrep argues, countless black jurors could have been seated throughout the nation at precisely the moment when white legislators and jurists were making and enforcing segregation laws. Marshall and Mollison's success in breaking through Mississippi law to get blacks admitted to juries suggests that legal reasoning plausibly founded on constitutional principle, as articulated by the Supreme Court, could trump even the most stubbornly prejudiced public opinion.