The conviction of Tom Robinson was a result of racial prejudice and bias in the justice system at that time. Presenting the same evidence to a jury today would likely result in a different outcome, given the increased awareness and advocacy for equality and justice for all individuals.
He's guilty, but the evidence clearly shows he didn't do it. Judge Taylor claims him not guilty though.
Tom Robinson was found guilty in Chapter 21 of Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Captain Kidd was found guilty of piracy and murder in 1701. He was convicted based on evidence presented in court, including testimony from witnesses. Kidd was subsequently hanged in London.
It will obvioulsy be the contention of the defendant that no one had any "proof" that they did it, but if they were, nonetheless, found guilty the proseuction MUST have presented enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offense.
The jury finds Tom Robinson guilty of raping Mayella Ewell. Tom Robinson was innocent, but because Robert "Bob" Ewell knew that no one (the white populace) would believe Robinson, (and that Ewell made up a "convincing" testimony about Tom Robinson raping Mayella), the jury found Robinson guilty of all charges despite the fact that it was obvious he was innocent. The verdict was that he was guilty, and was sentenced to death.
Whether one should be for or against Mary being found guilty depends on the context of her actions and the evidence presented. If she committed a crime and the evidence supports her guilt, then being in favor of her conviction aligns with upholding justice. Conversely, if she is innocent or if there are mitigating circumstances, it would be unjust to support a guilty verdict. Ultimately, the decision should be guided by facts and the principles of fairness and justice.
Jem cries after the trial because he is devastated by the injustice that Tom Robinson faced despite the overwhelming evidence in his favor. He is also upset by the racism and prejudice displayed by the residents of Maycomb. The trial challenges Jem's beliefs in the fairness and integrity of the justice system.
Well, honey, in the movie "12 Angry Men," the boy is initially perceived as guilty by most of the jurors. However, throughout the film, one juror raises doubts about the evidence presented, leading to a not guilty verdict. So technically, the boy was found not guilty by the end of the movie. But hey, watch it for yourself and make up your own mind, darling.
Johnny is guilty because the evidence presented clearly shows his involvement in the crime. Witnesses identified him at the scene, and his fingerprints were found on the weapon used. Additionally, his alibi was weak and contradicted by surveillance footage. Collectively, these factors establish a compelling case against him.
In "To Kill a Mockingbird," the character Atticus Finch defended Tom Robinson in court. The jury members who were convinced by the evidence and testimonies in favor of Tom Robinson's innocence included some unnamed members who were swayed by Atticus's arguments and the truthfulness of the defense. Ultimately, despite their efforts, the jury found Tom Robinson guilty due to the prevailing racial prejudice in the community.
Jem feels disillusioned by the jury system because he realizes that prejudice and racism play a significant role in determining the outcome of trials, regardless of the evidence presented. He becomes frustrated when Tom Robinson is found guilty despite the lack of concrete evidence against him, leading Jem to question the fairness and integrity of the legal system.
Unfair if you were found guilty due to dodgy evidence.