Throughout Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson explores the power of identity, the necessity of reckoning with our country’s complicated past, and the need to examine who or what we deem worthy of Mercy or grace. He begins the real-life narrative in the late 1980s, a time when harsh policing strategies and incorrectly assumed guilt unfairly influenced the convictions of many individuals. The book is an articulation of grievous errors in reaching justice for the colored and underprivileged people of the United States. The writer of the book, Bryan Stevenson, born into a poor, racially segregated community in Delaware, is a graduate of the Harvard Law School who founded the Equal Justice Initiative, an organization committed to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in American Society. Stevenson does a poor job of demonstrating what justice is or is not when dealing with some cases, especially in the case against McMillian. He skims through the apparent stack of evidence pointing towards McMillian’s innocence and finishes by stating that “the rule of law just does not apply to some people” (Stevenson 303). However, such instances only appear when skimming the surface of the book. However, Stevenson argues that these issues are much more widespread and affect many large groups and cases. So, what exactly are these issues that others cannot understand? How does this weak argument come through as a strong analysis of society and justice regarding law?
Just Mercy is a memoir written by Bryan Stevenson. It is the true story of Stevenson, a Harvard graduate and a lawyer who moves to Alabama to start his law firm. Throughout the story, Stevenson works for an organization known as the Equal Justice Initiative, where he helps defend and represent those who have been wrongly convicted and those who cannot afford legal representation. One of Stevenson’s first cases deals with Walter McMillian, who has been sentenced to death for a murder he claims he did not commit. Throughout the story, the author explains how difficult it is for a black man to receive a fair trial in the southern United States. As Stevenson states, “The accused were overwhelmingly black, and the politics of law and order had triggered a change in which legislatures viewed the black poor as the problem and began to build a range of new crimes that were more applicable to the new target population.” This statement accurately describes the situation and becomes a recurring theme in Stevenson’s cases.
Four characters stand out most prominently in the story. They include Bryan Stevenson, the protagonist, an African American Harvard graduate who started his career at EJI. Herbert is a convicted murderer who has been residing on death row for many years. Despite his violent crime, his character is used to evoke sympathy and demonstrate the unfairness of the system. Walter McMillian, the victim. He was wrongfully convicted of murder and has been sentenced to life in prison. Walter’s family and various members of his family, including his wife Minnie, play roles within the story, all of which relate to the disadvantage and discouragement faced by black people in the southern United States. His family also serves to contrast the hospitality of their local community with the corruption and unjust decisions made by those in the ‘justice’ system.
The story’s main themes include humanity, injustice, and seeking redemption. The philosophy of Just Mercy is profoundly humanist in the most accurate meaning of the word. The presentation of prisoners is not impersonal. The author shows that prisoners have pains and hopes and regret what they have done. They are shown to perform hymns. They have certain foods that they love. They fear that they will die, they offer prayers, and they cry, which shows their humane side despite them being offenders. The purpose of Stevenson’s stories is not to absolve real criminals; instead, it is to humanize them and highlight the harsh realities of incarceration. He tries to show that a court document kept in a file cabinet is not the only thing an execution is. The execution process has different sides, and the family of the offender and the offender often have a tough time reconciling and living with the conviction. For instance, he shows the vulnerability and pain the prisoners go through by showing Charlie’s experience in jail. Charlie was arrested after killing his mother’s boyfriend since he was abusive. In their initial meeting, he was withdrawn and barely spoke, but after a while, he told Stevenson, “There were three men who hurt me on the first night. They touched me and made me do things… They came back the next night and hurt me a lot… There were so many last night. I don’t know how many there were, but they hurt me” (p. 123-124). This shows the inhumane nature of jail and also shows that prisoners are human, too, who feel sad and pain when they are mistreated.
Another central theme evident in the book is injustice. The injustices that led to the inmates’ incarceration are much more distressing than their accounts. Ramsey argues that given that Stevenson represents the defense and that the reader only hears one side of a purposefully antagonistic and two-sided judicial process, it may be prudent to reserve judgment until all the information comes in (324). In particular, conservatives will be more likely to err on the side of “trusting the system.” However, the system itself has admitted that heinous injustices have been committed against defenseless people on several occasions. For instance, Stevenson shows how Walter McMillan was on death row for six years, yet he was innocent. His case shows that the system is unfair since the arresting officers and other players in the judicial system can conceal evidence or change it to fit their assumptions. Injustice also occurs in how prisoners are treated since some have a rough time when they are in jail and undergo inhumane acts while imprisoned. However, despite these injustices, Stevenson shows that these individuals often seek redemption for their acts. Stevenson shows a lack of bitterness in the book. He shows guards and civilians who have had Mercy on prisoners due to their circumstances. It is, therefore, evident that no one is beyond help, and there is hope for even the most cruel criminals. It is clear that this is a broken life, and both victims and criminals are affected by crime and the tragedy that follows.
First, I believe Just Mercy is not simply about explaining public policy. The story shows that Christians are in support of the death penalty since it is rooted in their belief of “life for life.” This principle shows the value of life and explains how no size of fine or prison time can be equal to taking someone’s life. However, the conversation needs to go further than that. Even conservatives like myself who believe there is a biblical case for the death penalty should acknowledge that even if the death penalty is legal in theory, it might not be in practice if a large number of innocent people are being put to death or if justice is being distorted due to racism or favoritism toward the rich. Although there will never be a perfect justice system, we cannot afford to treat the punishment of the innocent as if it were nothing.
Additionally, it is essential to consider the story from another perspective, that is, from the victim’s side. For example, Avery Jenkins, who had a bad foster care story with abuse, was arrested because he “brutally stabbed to death a man he’d believed to be a demon” (p. 197). Another example is George Daniel, who killed an officer as he was being arrested for entering a civilian’s house. Indeed, these cases would have been different if Stevenson had listened to the victims and their families. While the author recognizes the difficulty of these two perspectives, it shows that the view of justice and humanity would be different.
While searching through various criminal justice book reviews, it would be hard to believe that Stevenson’s book holds such a significant weight on society, both for the better and worse. One of the most prominent accusations in the book is its claim in the epilogue that society has turned its back on the rule of law and justice. Stevenson does a poor job of demonstrating what justice is or is not when dealing with his cases, especially in the case against McMillian. He skims through the apparent stack of evidence pointing towards McMillian’s innocence and finishes by stating that “the rule of law just does not apply to some people.” By thrusting the reader directly into the wrongful conviction of McMillian, the harsh realities of the presumptive guilt assigned to many African Americans are brought to light. In evaluating the degree of racial bias and injustice prevalent in cases such as McMillian’s, we are forced to question if justice in its most accurate form exists for all people. However, the book cannot be enough for students of law and criminal cases since it mostly appeals to the humanity of criminals rather than showing exactly how the justice department has failed.
Ramsey, Joseph G. “Never Throw Away the Key: The Compassionate Radicalism of Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy.” Socialism and Democracy 35.2-3 (2021): 323-338.
Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy (movie tie-in edition): A story of justice and redemption. One World, 2019.