During class, a mock trial was conducted based on the historic case State V. Mann. Here, I’ll write a brief overview of the trial and its conclusion. Going into this trial, my heart wanted to side with the state, however, law at that time would force a difference in opinion.
First, let’s talk about what this case was about. In Chowan County, North Carolina, a slave by the name of Lydia was rented to John Mann. One day, Lydia attempted an escape from Mann after receiving lashes as a punishment. Mann drew his gun and shot Lydia, wounding her but not killing her.
The matter was taken to court where Mann received a fine of $10. Believing he did no wrong, Mann took this case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court found Mann not guilty of battery and had the State repay Mann his money.
In our class, many arguments for the State deemed it unfair Mann should getaway for the damage of another person’s property. While Mann was the renter, the slave belonged to Elizabeth Jones and he had now damaged her property.
Other arguments for the State included the fact Lydia, while technically owned property, was still human and deserved justice. One presenter even brought up the age-old saying “An eye for an eye.”
Religious reasoning was also brought into play by the State. Unanimously, arguers felt some sort of kindness, and reasoning was expected, as instructed by God. They strongly felt this type of deliberate action was harsh and unjust.
On the other side of the argument, the legal defense for Mann believed property has no right under God and shouldn’t be treated as so. As a renter of Lydia for one year’s time, Mann felt he possessed the power to treat her as he saw fit.
Mann’s defense also cited a law in North Carolina’s sister-state Virginia where slaves could lawfully be shot and killed as property. According to presenters for Mann, a slave has the duty to obey and a slave master has the duty to discipline if not followed. The disciplinary action used is solely up to the master’s discretion.
Following the conclusion of both arguments, the judge ruled in favor of John Mann and just like the real case, had the State reimburse the monetary fine.
For me, this ruling makes sense for the time it was set. While, as mentioned, my heart wants to side with the State’s initial ruling, the bottom line is law during this time had no way of achieving any justice for Lydia as “property.”
Sources:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-v-mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann
Notes From Class
No comments:
Post a Comment