Preceding the post World War period, undisguised discrimination against Mexican Americans had disseminated amongst the Southwest regions. Often classified as substandard to American society, individuals of Mexican ancestry were underrepresented as constituents in the board of jury. In Jackson County of Edna, Texas, for the last twenty-five years, any individual attached to distinctive indicators of Spanish heritage such as a Spanish surname were denied admittance into serving jury. Consequently, a lack of representation from peers in the court of law was demonstrated in the case of the accused, Pete Hernandez in the murder of Jose Espinosa in 1950. The judicial system’s inbuilt partiality against minority classes is also displayed in the 1942 Sleepy Lagoon murder trial. When a Mexican American man is discovered dead in Los Angeles lake, the case is constructed on unfounded evidence and testimonials. “...because of their Indian roots, Mexicans had a “total disregard for human life [that] has always been universal throughout the Americas among the Indian population”, stated Los Angeles Sheriff’s office. Biased judgement inhibits due justice in the occurrence of perpetuated discrimination such as segregated public pools, parks, and schools. As the general populace and supreme court communicates such strong prejudice against marginalized Mexican Americans, fair representation in court delimits the deliverance of fair trial and equal rights. The approach of securing fair judicial ruling for Mexican Americans would begin with Mexican-American civil-rights lawyer, Gustavo Garcia who agreed to represent Hernandez. On January 11, 1954 Garcia asserts the guarantee of equal protection on the basis of race and class under the fourteenth amendment, and that exclusion of class had been initiated in the process of selecting jurors. Although Texas responded that the exclusion of Mexican Americans were solely based on coincidence and that discrimination had no factor, Garcia exhibits extensive evidence that discrimination had sufficient influence in court decisions in the state of Texas. Following the “Zoot Suit” riots of targeted Mexican American youths, clothing was used as an unconditional criminal identity marker by the Anglo police force.
…show more content…
Sensationalized accounts of the event was manipulated by the media to publicize anti-Mexican animosity. At a socio-economic disadvantage, Mexican Americans were living under poor housing conditions and inadequate sanitation. Without the means of sufficient education opportunities due to segregated public schools, Plyler v. Doe presented that many undocumented immigrant children of Mexican descent fell under the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, and could not under law, be inhibited from the access of public schools.
The cases of discrimination against individuals of Mexican ancestry denotes a similar case of a deficiency in fair representation in the Castenada v. Partida court case. “It is no longer open to dispute that Mexican Americans are a clearly identifiable class” states a defendant in concerns of underrepresentation of Texas juries. Relying heavily on the Hernandez v Texas case, the intent was to accentuate the discrepancy of equal protection and representation. Additionally, White v Regester, was …show more content…
Fair treatment in the supreme court is relied heavily on the justice system’s aptness in honoring an unbiased approach to cases involving accusations against people of color. Recognition of the Hispanic community as well as other ethnic and minority groups as an equivalent to American society is a fundamental basis in achieving basic protection and equality. Underlying the efforts of securing these rights for people of Hispanic ancestry, is the crux of eradicating racial prejudice and discrimination. In the absence of such elemental entitlements, resulting consequences would rouse social and political
Sensationalized accounts of the event was manipulated by the media to publicize anti-Mexican animosity. At a socio-economic disadvantage, Mexican Americans were living under poor housing conditions and inadequate sanitation. Without the means of sufficient education opportunities due to segregated public schools, Plyler v. Doe presented that many undocumented immigrant children of Mexican descent fell under the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, and could not under law, be inhibited from the access of public schools.
The cases of discrimination against individuals of Mexican ancestry denotes a similar case of a deficiency in fair representation in the Castenada v. Partida court case. “It is no longer open to dispute that Mexican Americans are a clearly identifiable class” states a defendant in concerns of underrepresentation of Texas juries. Relying heavily on the Hernandez v Texas case, the intent was to accentuate the discrepancy of equal protection and representation. Additionally, White v Regester, was …show more content…
Fair treatment in the supreme court is relied heavily on the justice system’s aptness in honoring an unbiased approach to cases involving accusations against people of color. Recognition of the Hispanic community as well as other ethnic and minority groups as an equivalent to American society is a fundamental basis in achieving basic protection and equality. Underlying the efforts of securing these rights for people of Hispanic ancestry, is the crux of eradicating racial prejudice and discrimination. In the absence of such elemental entitlements, resulting consequences would rouse social and political