I Always Wanted To Be Harper Lee
Today marks the 50th Anniversary of Harper Lee’s stunning novel To Kill A Mockingbird. I know I haven’t done a lot of direct political and cultural blogging here recently (mostly because so much of that goes on at Care2 and other sites for me these days), but this is an anniversary I just can’t let pass. That’s because for me I don’t think I can name a single book with as much influence in my own personal mythology as this one. So much so that even as a young girl I wanted to be Harper Lee–an author with a singular vision and purpose who knew what she wanted to say and how she wanted to say it, and then be done with it. I projected all my early fears of writing onto her public shyness, going so far as extrapolating a common personality bond because we share a birthday.
And as an artist to this day I can’t think of another novel that so perfectly captures American injustice and American persistence. Yes, I was a nerdy lit major, and American literature is my thing, but Lee’s art captured an ETHOS- an accomplishment very few artists ever get to claim.
Sure, it doesn’t hurt that I was raised by a single dad and civil rights attorney who, by Nebraska’s standards, was as close to Atticus Finch as a real guy could get. Given the racism that was institutionalized, mainstreamed and accepted in my youth, it always felt like my family somehow existed on the margins, at times recklessly if not dangerously so. How much of that is true versus how much of that was imagined and/or projected by me is an open question. But it is undeniable that in my mind Lee’s world and my world were one in the same.
Now, fifty-years later I’ve got to say I’m a bit depressed by how little our American ethos towards race and justice have changed. Our criminal justice system still tilts away from justice for African-Americans, either as crime victims or the accused. A cop can shoot an unarmed black man in the back and is virtually guaranteed an acquittal, like here. It’s a damn shame, really. And I don’t know if that speaks more to the persistence of Lee’s art or the insidiousness of our American nature. My suspicion though is that it’s both.
July 11th, 2010 | 
Category: Care2.com, Mommy, Teaching, The Family, The Patriarchy |
9 comments | 
Comments 
Great tribute to Harper Lee and her novel. I read it as a young high school student in Lynchburg, Va (home of the Falwell family and Liberty University), at the height of the civil rights movement. It helped that my dad was a strong supporter of that movement, but even without his influence, To Kill a Mockingbird would have focused my attention on racial injustice in the world around me like nothing else.
Re: “A cop can shoot an unarmed black man in the back and is virtually guaranteed an acquittal”
You’re aware that the cop in question was convicted–by an all-white jury, no less–of involuntary manslaughter, right?
It is your view that no reasonable doubt exists [concerning the ex-cop's claimed taser/gun confusion] and that the prosecutor should have pursued a second-degree murder charge?
The verdict was an all-but-unprecedented instance of a police officer being convicted for an on-duty shooting.
After the conviction, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
“The verdict was an all-but-unprecedented instance of a police officer being convicted for an on-duty shooting.”
Recommended: http://tinyurl.com/28esq59
Yes, I am aware that the officer in question was convicted, in Los Angeles, by an all-white jury of involuntary manslaughter. I am also aware that the following questions remain unanswered:
1) The video from the scene shows Grant already subdued with an officer on his neck. Why the need to tase (against all escalation of force protocal) a suspect who was prone and subdued?
2) Given Mehserle’s training and experience, how is it possible to confuse a taser from a handgun, particularly in the face of a subdued suspect? They are not built anything alike. Their weights are different. They have different safety mechanisms.
The prosecutor did pursue 2nd degree murder charges (after agreeing to not pursue 1st degree murder charges). The jury just chose not to convict based on those charges.
Involuntary manslaughter is the equivalence of a negligence, or reckless disgregard, intent. The video alone shows no heat of pursuit, no shots exchanged, no suspect coming at the officer. Instead it shows Mehserle getting up off Grant’s back, stepping away, and firing point blank in his back. There was nothing negligent about those actions. It would appear that the Department of Justice at least shares my initial reaction as well.
If you’re aware the officer was convicted, why did you write, “A cop can shoot an unarmed black man in the back and is virtually guaranteed an acquittal”? (Do you now retract this sentence?)
Mark Kleiman writes: “Involuntary manslaughter, also called criminally negligent homicide is the unintentional killing of a person under circumstances where the act that led to death reflected extremely culpable carelessness.”
Cops occasionally tase people to scare them into submission, even when handcuffed. By defending the verdict, I am not defending the conduct of the Mehserle–though I do not find it obvious that he sought to kill Grant. (The video in no way clarifies this central question, btw.)
To convict on the 2nd degree murder charge, the jury would have had to agree that–beyond a reasonable doubt–the cop knowingly selected his handgun and intentionally killed Grant.
Let me note again, Jessica: You still haven’t answered the central question: Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle intentionally killed Grant? Furthermore, would you expect any reasonable jury to be able to unanimously reach such a conclusion?
In the event, Mehserle will be heading to prison for 5-14 years for the ‘unintentional killing of a person under circumstances where the act that led to death reflected extremely culpable carelessness.’
Would that really shock Harper Lee’s conscience?
Gavin, I do answer the question. In this post and in the Care2 post. I disagree with the verdict. As does Mehserle who is challenging it. So 5-14 years is far from a guarantee. California recognizes a “depraved heart” theory which does allows for a second degree conviction in this case even if the intent was not to kill per se, but a requirement that the defendant acted with gross negligence. But thanks for the crim law refresher.
No, I don’t retract my previous sentence. Given the evidence, I believe it is a bad verdict. A conviction of involuntary manslaughter is not at all far from an acquittal. Or so I’m told by my colleagues in the county attorney’s office.
Please list several Californians prosecuted under ‘depraved heart’–so that we may compare their cases with Mehserle/Grant, okay Jessica? (Surely you can provide at least one comparable example, no?)
“A cop can shoot an unarmed black man in the back and is virtually guaranteed an acquittal,” you affirm–despite Mehserle’s conviction. You square the circle by equating 5-14 years hard time (85% of which will likely be served) with acquittal. Pshaw!
Here are the leading cases re: second degree murder (implied malice murder) that will not require a Westlaw password, since, for some reason, I’m continuing on in this exercise with you.
People v. Watson; People v. Garder and People v. Cervantes. These will give you not only the definitional requirements of the amount of malice required to prove this charge (which is, intent shown w/extremely reckless behavior, not, as you want to insist, a specific intent to kill). Also see the case of Kenneth Autry, who was convicted of this charge for driving drunk and killing two construction workers. California has also attempted to prosecute doctors when their medical negligence has resulted in the death of patients under this theory but has not had success beyond the trial court level.
And remember, manslaughter is a different charge altogether than murder. Both fall under the homicide umbrella. And there is still no guarantee, despite your claims of 5-14 years of anything. Mehserle is appealing his conviction and sentencing has not yet occurred. Like other attorneys who pay close attention to civil rights and matters of criminal justice I am focusing my attention now on the Department of Justice investigation.
I’m done with this absurdity. I’ve beyond proven my point and defended my position. I could care less if you agree.
Alas, Hegemommy, you’re smack-dab in the middle of your absurdity, still. And you haven’t shown any comparability between your cited cases [none of which appear to include a cop] and Mehserle/Grant. You lament Mehserle’s appeal, above: You wouldn’t seek to remove this right, would you? The ad hominem to which you descend is of course sad–and very much in character.
Wow, you’ve got your very own antagonist. While I’ll acknowledge that second degree manslaughter is not an acquittal, it is a profound miscarriage of justice considering the circumstances of the so-called “manslaughter” of an unarmed man already subdued. Yet, this is the America we are a part of: the gains of the civil rights era have proved to be merely a quaint footnote in History as true racial equality — and more to the point, class equality — is no closer today than it was 50 years ago when “To Kill a Mockingbird” was published. Sorry, but I don’t have the time to pursue a circle jerk of semantics with Gavin on issues of legal precedence, but I admire your tenacity and patience ‘Hegemommy.’