- Prosecutor DeLaughter asserted that reopening the wound left by the Medgar Evers' assassination and retrying a 70 year old man, cleansed the wound and allowed it to heal, rather than to fester and poison future generations. Do you agree with his assessment or do you think that the retrial unnecessarily opened old wounds?
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
The Ghosts of Mississippi
After watching the film, "The Ghosts of Mississippi", please answer the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reopening the wound left by the Medgar Evers' assassination and retrying a seventy year old man does open up old wounds. However, re-trialing the case will help society move forward in a more positive, equal manner. Bringing up an old court case like Medgar Evers' will not end racism, nor will it stop racial crimes, however, it's a step forward. Society will have no one to follow if there is no one to lead. Sometimes, taking a small step like this is all it takes to start a chain reaction of change.
ReplyDeleteI think that reopening the case of Edgar Myers was the right decision. There's a few factors that come into play while prosecutor DeLaughter made his decision to pursue this case, but ultimately he followed his heart and wanted to do what he thought was right. Certainly, it wasn't easy to win a case like that in Alabama during that time. Plus, he had to consider how all the racist white folks would take it and maybe dump out all there hate on him and possibly danger his family or his reputation. What he did was extremely brave and helped progress the civil rights movement. There were some risks involved, but the future of Alabama or any state for that matter is far too precious to not act on something inhumane.
ReplyDeleteAlthough reopening the Edgar Myers case reopened many old and new wounds, I feel like it was a necessary thing to do. Delaughter only tried to reveal the truth and bring the murderer to justice. This was not just about a white man doing this to black man. It was a murder and the murderer got away with it for 26 years and that's not acceptable. I believe that this assessment, this action was necessary to clear the whole racial factor out of the question and to bring a man to justice. This man sacrificed so much and he wanted an end result. He could not accept that an act as inhumane as this to be ignored as something trivial.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I do agree with DeLaughter’s assessment; reopening the Evers trial allowed justice to be served and, thusly, the healing of that particular wound. However, while de la Beckwith’s incarceration may have satisfied the Evers family, it certainly did not make up for other exonerated murderers. In my opinion, the Evers trial seemed purposed to excuse all other crimes whites had committed against blacks (and gotten away with)…almost as if the victory over one was equivalent to a victory over many. On another note, the outcome of the trial most certainly did leave a bad taste in the mouths of some; Mississippi, as is the case in many parts of the world, is not without racism. This trial may indeed have reopened old wounds…and let them fester. On the whole, though, DeLaughter’s steadfast approach to the case is admirable, and it shows that the conviction of one can truly make a difference for many others.
ReplyDeleteAlthough reinstating the Edgar Myers case reopened many old and new wounds, I believe it was a crucial necessity that needed to be done. Most would agree that it is never too late to do justice. There were still racists in Mississippi in 1989, when this case was tried for the third time, but the fact that a jury convicted de la Beckwith proved that the Mississippi justice system had been reformed and by 1989 could deliver justice.
ReplyDeleteProsecutor DeLaughter was faced with the difficult decision to reopen the Evers' case. Although reopening the case opened wounds of the past, the retrial helped heal the Evers' family wounds. Not only did the retrial help heal the Evers' family, it helped Alabama and our nation move in a step forward toward racial equality. The guilty verdict by the jury for Beckwith helped many generations heal and has influenced others to fight for racial equality.
ReplyDeleteI think that the retrial did open old wounds for many people. Especially the family of the murdered Evers, and most african american people who may have ever felt racially segregated against in the town. Although this happened, reopening the case and bringing justice was the right thing to do as it set precedent to prevent a similar case from happening in the future. This retrial also was a step forward towards racial equality in Alabama, as it culminated in support from both whites and african americans. Without the retrial, a guilty man would be free, a corrupt politician would still be in office, and Alabama would continue on as a place believing to be justified in its racial segregation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the case may have opened up old wounds, it was necessary in order to bring not just Mississippi, but other parts of the South, one step closer towards integration. Even though the case may have not convinced a great number of people to change their beliefs, the fact that de la Beckwith was convicted is proof that the Mississippi court system was moving in the right direction, and that it is never too late for justice to be served.
ReplyDeleteI agree with DeLaughter's assessment because reopening the case brought closure to not only Medgar Evers's family, but also to the rest of society. If the case had never been reopened, justice would have never been served to De La Beckwith and the Evers family would forever continue to live in bitterness knowing that Medgar's death has never been avenged. In addition, DeLaughter meant that reopening this case would surely act as an example to future generations so that they can realize that committing racist crimes is completely unjustified and will not go unpunished. I agree with this because now that the case if rightfully resolved after so many years, it allows people to slowly transition into a brighter future consisting of a non racist society. Despite the fact that many old wounds were reopened, it was only necessary to make progress in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeciding to reopen Medgar Ever's murder case was a risky one, but DeLaughter was willing to do it because the payoff would be far greater than the risk. Reopening the case can be seen in two ways, depending on the perspective you're coming from. If you look at it from a societal stand point, reopening the case to properly convict someone of a crime they committed is a way to prove that justice can be served accordingly. If not, the outcome could be far worse, something we've seen in the present day. However, had the outcome of the verdict not been favorable for the Evers family and DeLaughter himself, the reopening of the case would've just been another stab in the heart for Evers' widow and children. I think DeLaughter's mindset when deciding to open the case was that the future would learn from it, and begin to right the wrongs of the past. However, not all wrongs can be righted, unfortunately, so this could've detrimentally effected family members of people who were martyred in the battle for equality. That being said, since the verdict was favorable and justice was served, it's hard to argue that the reopening of the case wasn't beneficial to society, or people personally affected by the murder of Medgar Evers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Prosecutor DeLaughters assessment that the retrial would cleanse the wound and allow it to heal rather than to fester and poison future generations. By carrying out this retrial, society as a whole will be able to move on and justice will finally be handed down. Without this retrial, this assassination would have left a negative vibe in the community for all African Americans.
ReplyDeleteOpening up Medgars Evers case was the right decision by Delaughters. Even though it opened up old wounds from the past, Mr.Evers and his family deserved justice. Re opening the case allowed for people to see how corrupt the courts were and how racism was still alive in 90's when the retrial happened. The retrial did allow for the African American community to recieve some justice,although racism did not stop.
ReplyDeleteEven though the trial certainly opened old wounds, retrying a murderer and bringing Medgar Evers and his family closure and justice was necessary and the right thing to do. Bringing a 70 year old man to court may seem wrong to some people, but one must not forget that this man murdered someone out of spite, and the passage of time does not change the fact that he is guilty. Reopening the case and holding a fair trial helps not only Medgar's family to move on, but also the country as a whole. I'm sure that everyone knew that his murderer was guilty, and yet racism and hate allowed him to walk free. Bringing him to justice showed both the country and the world that racism and hate crimes will no longer be tolerated, and that no one is above the law. Even though racism is obviously still very prevalent in today's society, reopening the Evers' case was an important step in bringing equality to all citizens here in America.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion re-trialing the case is a wise choice simply because it would further cleanse the wound and allow it to heal rather than weep the future generations. Re-opoeing showed how corruption was prevalent, it showed the injustice, and it showed the racism in Alabama. By carrying out this retrial, equity would be served and without it the assassination would have left a permeant scar on the communities until the end of time.
ReplyDeleteHaving a retrial for the Medgar Evers' case only opened up old wounds for those who let it affect them in a negative way. Mostly, that entailed the citizens who had traces of racist sentiments left. DeLaughter made the right decision. This decision and the ultimate verdict would help pave the way for positive reinforcement against racism. The Evers' family would finally be able to see justice in a guilty murder, and the country as a whole would be able to see that racism still exists. But, that there is a way to fight it.
ReplyDeleteThe retrial of the Edgar Myers case allowed the court to right a wrong. The new verdict brought a new sense of integration to the region as well. The original verdict was influenced heavily by the attitudes towards African Americans in the south during the period, which is wrong. The law shouldn't be influenced by personal opinions, instead based on facts, and the new verdict accurately represented these facts.
ReplyDeleteI think the reopening of the case was an unnecessary revitalization of the racist boundaries between black and white Americans of the south. While the intentions of the case were right and just it resulted in redeveloping the racial barrier between blacks and whites that was fading slowly away. The disgusting acts of many both black and white were brought back to the face of the media where it could have left a great racial impact on many kids of those who suddenly became extremists involved in the movement. So while reopening the case may have been the right thing to do morally it was a bad decision as far as its impact on the larger community around him is concerned.
ReplyDeleteIt's a case of old habits are hard to break: even in 1989, racism still shows a huge influence in Mississippi. The re-trial of Myers was a good cause, but nobody that has common sense can say that it didn't open up old wounds. However, that is the reason why DeLaughter reopened the trial: he wanted to heal those wounds properly and make sure that they weren't infecting society anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reopening of this trial opened old wounds, but gave them a chance to "heal" through justice instead of acting like it never happened. I saw this as an opportunity to make things right in a place where racism is alive and thriving. Although it may not solve the issue of racism in Mississippi, it is a good stepping stone to justice for the people who deserve it.
ReplyDeleteMedgar Edvars was not fairly represented. His case, which should have been fair and just, was under represented. It is true that the reopening of this case could lead to some "poison" so to speak, it is not just about the man. The reopening of this case was meant to be a more reflective experience. The case was to show that the past has damaged the present, and the only way for society to move forward is to remember those that were underrepresented. This does not solve the issue of racism, but it again, it does allow things to carry on in a more positive way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that reopening the case was a good decision, of course it reopened wounds but the outcome was healing. Many people were unable to heal until justice was served, and Medgar Ever’s trial had to be retried and prosecutor DeLaughter knew that. Reopening of the case and having the old man tried a third time was a step towards the direction of healing for everyone in the town and it also paved the way for them in that town to move past skin color.
ReplyDeleteI believe that retrying the Medgar Evans' case in 1994 cleansed the wound rather than reopened it. If the retried case had been ended with the same result as the one twenty five years prior, the wound would have been reopened and poisoned, reminding those involved of the injustice and tragedy that occurred so long ago. With the case ending in a conviction (Beckwith getting a life sentence), many, most importantly the Evans family, are happy to see justice finally served.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Medger Evers' case was almost 30 years old when it was re-opened, I ultimately feel that retrying the case helped to heal a wound that truly had never gotten the chance to heal. Although racism wasn't as prevalent in Mississippi in the 90's during the re-opening of this trial compared to how it was in the 60's when the case first appeared, it was a huge step in the direction of trying to end racism once and for all not only in the state of Mississippi, but all across the U.S. as well. Although the retrial ending in Beckwith's prosecution was a huge victory for all African American's who had ever felt the effects of racism, it was most importantly a victory for the Ever's family and specifically Mrs. Evers who could finally be at peace with the idea that her husband's killer was finally put where he belonged.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the first two biased trials to stand would have stamped a black mark on Mississippi, which already suffers a long history of resisting social progression. The retrial of Beckwith and his long-overdue punishment was a symbolic act of condemnation against vitriolic racism and subsequent violence, which helped Mississippi turn the page and eventually repair its image into one that upholds equality and fairness. The wound of Evers' assassination was never closed to begin with; it had been festering and required someone like DeLaughter to seal it once and for all.
ReplyDeleteI believe DeLaughter's reopening of the case was a potentially painful but necessary step in creating an impartial framework for the legal system in Mississippi and creating a more equitable justice system, specifically in regards to race, which the state has a troubled past in. While it may have agitated certain aspects of society, the underlying racism needed to be addressed, and so although he was reopening the wound in a way, he was doing so because it was never really closed correctly. He cleaned it of the infection that was left from the previous 2 trials and in doing so created a precedent for equality that was and remains necessary, especially in states with a very prevalent and volatile history with race relations. He healed the wound correctly, and although it may be sore, it will ultimately change Mississippi for the better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with prosecutor DeLaughter’s decision to reopen the case because the retrial allowed for the Evers family to heal as well as bring justice to Medgar Evers’ murderer, Edgar Myers. The Evers family deserved closure even if it was twenty-five years later, and Myers had to be punished for his actions in order for the society to move forward and to improve racial equality in Mississippi. While this process was risky, the results were well worth and so I agree with DeLaughter’s assessment.
ReplyDeleteWhile DeLaughter's decision to reopen Medgar Evers' assassination case was a risky and bold move regarding his family's safety and his public image, it was a necessary step that needed to be taken in order to lead the state of Mississippi, as well as many other southern states, in the direction they needed to move towards: equality. By reopening this case, wounds and all, it taught our country as well as the state of Mississippi that the belief of one race dominating another is unacceptable and must be repelled against in the future. When DeLaughter opened this case a third time, it also helped to propel integration forward in Mississippi, a pivotal change necessary in America's transformation into an accepting body as the world has progressed, so, overall, DeLaughter definitely made the right decision in opening a third trial against Byron De La Beckwith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Delaughter's decision to reopen wounds was a good idea. However, I agree mostly with his decision not because the wounds would fester on future generations, but because Medgar Evans was clearly guilty. Delaughter hit the nail on the head when he spoke in front of the jury and said that in the American nation, you should never get away with crimes, and especially not with murder, whether it be immediately or decades later, you should have to be punished for your crimes. Delaughter did the right thing by reopening the case. He saw a relentless woman trying to avenge her husband by living her life in dedication to make her husband’s death mean something. Delaughter did what he believed in, and even through the struggle of his wife leaving him, and antagonizing by the community in Mississippi, he ended up being the hero in the end. I think we can all learn from Delaughter, and realize that the guilty should never rest, and that even in the end, our dark spirits of our past eventually do surface, and we should clean the wounds before we allow them to fester and poison.
ReplyDeleteThe reopening of the Medger Evers case was the right choice in order for the town to progress. I'd assume that many people knew Beckwith was guilty during his first trial, however they didn't think that it was wrong to kill an African American. Even DeLaughter's mother and wife thought that it was embarrassing to their family to open up this old wound. Beckwith is an example of the general mentality of the south toward blacks at that time, and in order to progress toward the more accepting culture seen in northern states this step needed to be taken. It was the LATE 20th century and having men like Beckwith getting away with the murder of another man because of race was the wrong message for the upcoming generations of the town to learn from.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was hard to reopen that would for Medgers wife especially. Even though this was hard to do, reopening the the trial and the case was necessary to try to help the family of Medger and everyone who believed that his the old man killed him. Winning this case helped the wounds healed and gave Medgers wife peace and justice.
ReplyDeleteReopening the wound left by the Medgar Evers' assassination and retrying a 70 year old man, was very difficult to take on but It healed a lot of society's curiosity and problems. Delaughters did what was right and reopened the case to prove that it wasn't only a racial conflict, but a also someone getting away with murder. By them winning the case it shows that it is never too late to fight for what is right, and gave Medgers wife some healing and showed that there's is justice.
ReplyDeleteThe decision was definately one not taken easily. The would left behind was a great one, yet it had to be done. Closure is definatly something that had to be achieved in order for there to be progress in the city of Jackson, the state of Mississippi, and the strength of the justice system in all. Although the case not an easy one to win, especially in the place the trial was held. That win proved that adversity is just an obstacle that can be overcame for the good of society.
ReplyDeleteRetrying Byron De La Beckwith was the correct decision and did not poison future generations. The trial needed to be concluded and the sentence needed to be carried out. Justice had to be given not only for the sake of the state of Mississippi, but also for the reassurance and well-being of white and colored families and citizens all across the US. It was heinous enough that Beckwith was not convicted in the first place, and the fact that he was welcomed as a hero in his home state did not help at all. Evers' family needed closure and Beckwith's continuation of taunting the authorities and bragging to the media needed to be silenced.
ReplyDeleteI agree with DeLaughter's assessment. Though the retrial was risky, it was the right move to make in order to give the Evers family the closure they well deserved and needed. The retrial was also a step forward in the integration and racial harmony of the community by teaching the people that no white man can get away with treating a black man with injustice, as they had been able to before. Not only that, but the retrial also helped to establish a foundation for good relations and trust between the two races. DeLaughter and Medgar's wife, though they had some difficulties at first, worked together, and it was ultimately their teamwork that led to the successful retrial.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the wound never healed. Mrs. Evers has never stopped attempting to put the man that murdered her husband prison. Yes, the retrial was risky. Mrs. Evers and prosecutor DeLaughter have been criticized and threatened throughout the process of the retrial, but in the end, the defendant was found guilty. What finally healed the wounds was sending Byron De La Beckwith to jail.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reopening of the trial was intended to bring closure and to help future generations understand that this was a different America. One that treated everyone equal under the law. The reopening of the trial showed the community that racial inequality and segregation was no longer accepted. They lost their father and husband and while the man who killed is being prosecuted,it brought about a new era for the community. It brought closure to the family for a wound that will be difficult to heal. They lost their father and husband and while the man who killed is being prosecuted, the wound cant ever heal.
ReplyDeleteIt was extremly important to reopen the wounds that were left with the dropped murder case after the killing of Medger Evers. Mississippi can be a racially devided place, and although the prosecutor got a lot of heat for trying to convict after so many year, it proved to the community that it is disappointed with its racist past and needs to turn over a new leaf. It also allowed for the Evers family to get closure, and feel like an accepted part of the community.
ReplyDeleteReopening the case was a good idea, due to letting the people have closure, rather than letting a murderer walk for even more years. Although wounds were opened and brought up to the suface, they were worth it because the murderer was convicted. Looking back on the racist times, our society was able to look past the racist aspect and justified right from wrong. With that, reopening the case was a good thing for our country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with him, mostly because the retrial allowed the Evers family to have closure. For decades they had to deal with knowing that Medgar's murderer walked free, but with the retrial (even before he was convicted) it showed them that the case had not been abandoned. It also was a symbol of change. In Mississippi the racial climate was beginning to be less tense - 20 years after the civil rights movement - and Beckwith's conviction showed that things had truly started to change. It may have permanently reopened old wounds, but in the end it left everyone feeling better about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that reopening the wound allowed for closure. Although it was risky, the bitterness and resentment left in people after the murder was being passed down from generation to generation. Without the closure the retrying of the case would provide, the resentment would continue to sit in people and would rest as an example of the line between blacks and whites. I believe this retrying was a necessary first step in moving on and developing the society along with the rest of the country.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reopening of Medger Evers case allowed for closure for the Evers family. It was a difficult decision for DeLaughter to make considering it was a trial giving a black man justice in Alabama during the time of the civil rights. Therefore DeLaughter risked what could have been his reputation as well as the safety of his family by doing so but ultimately he made the right decision. It allowed for progression for civil rights in the residing area of Alabama and in general gave justice to the Evers family for Medgers murder. This made the definite line between blacks and whites, along with the racsist mindsets to gradually diminish.
ReplyDeleteReopening the trial gave the opportunity of closure. Although the retrial reopened the wounds of the past, it helped the community heal from the loss of Medgar Evers. Conflicts resurfaced due to the retrial but the murderer was convicted and Mississippi moved forward toward racial equality. Without the closure, racial issues and conflicts would never subside. The reopening of the trial lead our country in the right direction of improvement.
ReplyDeleteI believe that reopening the case was the right decision. Nobody should be allowed to get away with murder. The murder was absolutely cold blooded and the murderer was perfectly content with killing a good man in Medger Evers. It was a step in the right Direction in terms of civil rights and equalization. Delaughter was a good man to take on a case that he caught a lot of negative comments from.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order for people to heal and move on here must be some form closure. In this regards I support DeLaughter in his effort to cleanse the wound of racial violence in in the south. I applaud his efforts in facing opposition from both black and white communities. The hostility towards him showcases the underlying resentment in the south just waiting to boil to the surface.
ReplyDeleteDeLaughter made a good decision in reopening the case. Although risky, because he would be defending a black man in a racist Alabama, he took on the case. He knew he would receive criticism, and put he and his families lives at risk. So yes, some people were bitter, but it provided more reason to progress the civil rights movement, and gave the town closure. He did the right thing by taking on the Evers case.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the reopening of the wound legt by Medgar Evers’ did cleanse the wound and allowed it to heal. The case showed the injustice within the Alabama court system; an Alabama delegate showed up to the case and shook Medgar’s hand in front of everyone like it was nothing. The reopening of the case ultimately led to a better integration. It was a necessary step towards equalization civil rights. The retrial definitely opened old wounds because it brought in people that didn’t want to think about the horrific event that occurred. One man was worried he might get killed if he told Prosecutor DeLaughter. Overall, it was a life-changing event and a good thing for the south during that racial time period.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to start out by stating that it was a wonderful movie and an inspirational story. I do not know about its affect since i wasn't alive then in Mississippi to witness it. But i do believe that it did a little bit of both. I think the state was trying to move on and forget its past and many residents were bothered by the case, but more importantly it brought forth closure. Medagar Evers' wife, who never gave up fighting and probably the most hurt by all this, was rewarded for her hard work and dedication.It would help make her feel that all her suffering was worth it. In a whole, the case represented that justice should always prevail no matter the circumstances. Justice should not have a time period stamped to it, Murder is Murder! The case was monumental for the justice system, but just like any case, just because justice was served doesn't mean it was served. John De La bequet got to live his life with ease and dodged prison for a while, meanwhile the man he killed didn't. The case couldn't bring back Medgar, no case can. But it allowed him to rest in peace and for his legacy, spirit, and memories to live on forever. R.I.P Medgar Evers
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, the injustice would've been left as a monument of human cruelty, both a painful reminder of how things used to be, and how little things had changed. I think that re-opening the case did help to cleanse the societal wound and show that justice can and will be served, but not the wounds left in the family.
ReplyDelete