By Zara Fearns
Muhammad A. Aziz and Khalil Islam have both spent more than 20 years in prison. They were two of the three black muslims arrested for the assasination of Malcolm X in 1965. Mujahid Abdul Halim was also found guilty, but remains convicted. He confessed to the murder but proclaimed that Aziz and Islam were innocent.
Malcolm was 39 when he was murdered in front of his pregnant wife and two daughters while giving a speech at the Audubon Ballroom. He was a member of the Nation of Islam and a Black Nationalist, and personally one of my favorite and most inspiring historical figures. (There are some great documentaries and movies on Netflix about him, as well as videos / transcripts of his speeches online if you are interested).
The documentary released on Netflix “Who Killed Malcom X?” follows a review of the case, which has been controversial for decades. It still leaves question unanswered, such as to why the police or government failed to prevent his murder. FBI documents and Police Department files reveal three important facts that were overlooked. 1) Evidence that pointed towards other suspects that was ignored. 2) Undercover officers present during the shooting were not disclosed during the trial by prosecutors. 3) Police received a call in the morning that informed them Malcolm X would be murdered. The trials of both men were conducted quickly, and with shaky evidence, pointing to racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system (something still very prevalent today), the same injustices that Malcolm X fought so hard against. The assasination of MLK would come three years later.
Connecting to course material, the terrorism and structural inequalities that affect black Americans is one of the main reasons that an African American third party has never been successfully created. The movements behind them, such as the Black Panther Party, or the broader Civil Rights Movement, certainly stirred up enough momentum to spark the creation of a third party. However, the U.S. government took action to prevent this, such as the FBI’s monitoring and blackmailing of key civil rights leaders, such as MLK and Malcolm X. As a result, a party formed in the name of African American interests has not been successful, and civil rights leaders and those fighting for racial equality today must do so through the two party system.
“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”
― Malcolm X
1) Is the exoneration of the two men convicted of killing Malcolm X a sign of the criminal justice system moving in a positive direction and remedying past wrongs, or is it too little, too late?
2) Is it difficult to trust our government and social systems, knowing they have been built to oppress certain groups, such as with the racism in the criminal justice system and the FBI's treatment of civil rights figures? Can reforms be achieved through the same systems that have set them up?
3) Should it be easier for third parties to form? What are the advantages / disadvantages?
4) Overall, any thoughts on the legacy of Malcolm X? He remains a pretty important figure, even in modern politics,
Sources
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056649430/malcom-x-aziz-islam-exonerated
11 comments:
I find it funny how after the release of a Netflix show, people decided to review a murder case like this. The exoneration of the two men killing Malcolm X signifies the criminal justice system taking a step forward in a positive direction, because it is only right to fix any mistakes they've made. I completely agree that the current government and social systems are not fully supportive of equality and I think that if true change is somehow sparked, there can still be reforms made by these same systems. It should not be easier for third parties to form because the political system in our government today is already complicated and as messy as it needs to be and adding in more parties would only lead to more conflict. I think that Malcolm X is up there among the ranks of top African American activists.
I find it funny how after the release of a Netflix show, people decided to review a murder case like this. The exoneration of the two men killing Malcolm X signifies the criminal justice system taking a step forward in a positive direction, because it is only right to fix any mistakes they've made. I completely agree that the current government and social systems are not fully supportive of equality and I think that if true change is somehow sparked, there can still be reforms made by these same systems. It should not be easier for third parties to form because the political system in our government today is already complicated and as messy as it needs to be and adding in more parties would only lead to more conflict. I think that Malcolm X is up there among the ranks of top African American activists. - mason ching
its disappointing it took a Netflix show for these two men to gain their freedom, them even spending some time in jail for a crime they didn't commit is unacceptable. Spending 20 decades is too much these two men are never going to get those 20 years back. These two men didn't become free because of the justice system wanted them to it took media to push them to review their case even id the evidence brought against them wasn't reliable. Its difficult for many people to trust the justice system if it has been systemically oppressing them for centuries, there are too many cases where death could've been avoided like in this case of malcom x there were so many factors that could've prevented this and then the arrest and conviction of two men, as well as the statistics of police are more likely to harm black men. The justice system has a prejudice against minorities how are they supposed to trust them? Third parties should be easier to form this is so small minority groups are able to get their voices heard and shouldn't have to join a extremely broad party that wont prioritize them when they could have a party to prioritize them, there arent any disadvantages I can think of. Malcom X is one of the most iconic and important figures in history and he should always be rememberd and honored. -Freja Garman
This example of Malcolm X's case being reexamined after the Netflix documentary came out is just one of the many stories of unresolved cases being brought back to the forefront. The fact that these types of cases are so prevalent highlights the issues with our justice system. If anything, the exoneration of the two men convicted of killing Malcolm X is a positive because it exemplifies how our system is growing more willing to reexamine past cases in the name of justice. And with a case like this, there is never a "too late".
I believe that people do have reason to not hold trust in our government and social systems because of the numerous times they have failed to obtain justice for the people. As we learned in class, nationwide surveys have shown that public trust in the government has declined significantly in the past century, with especially steep drops during the Great Depression and Watergate scandal. I think that the criminal justice system's injustices have definitely contributed to this continuous decline.
Finally, I think single-issue third parties serve a great job bringing public awareness to an issue and should continue to do so. Realistically, I don't think they will ever be a significant competitor against the major political parties, but they should help inform the public and influence the major parties' political agendas.
* sorry just wanted to correct in the original post i think i was unclear that the documentary was reporting on the review of the case not what caused it to be looked into again , though it it brought more public interest and awareness (oops) i was unclear on the timeline
I believe that the exoneration of two of the three men is a positive move. I wish the truth would have come out sooner rather than as long as it took, or that the men should not have been falsely convicted. There’s a greater trend now to recognize the wrongs, recognition of a problem is the first step in correcting anything. Change should come faster, but progress is being made.
Secondly, it’s difficult to trust a system that hides evidence or important facts during a trial. It is particularly more difficult for members of groups that are oppressed. African Americans have always been disadvantaged, but once so were Italian Americans, German Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans; the country has a history of demonization of groups. Change can happen within the system, it certainly has for some of the previously demonized groups; still, it is not easy and will require a lot of work.
To answer if it should be easier for third parties to form. I want to start off stating we have multiple parties today: Libertarian, Green Party and other less common ones. The funding of political parties is a huge problem. Corporate interests fund the RNC and DNC with billions of dollars, it is difficult for any new party to be competitive without similar funding. The positive side of additional parties is that they will be forced to work together to achieve any majority consensus to pass any agenda. The negative side is a government that is more fragmented.
With the current election system, I do not think that ease of third party formation would be beneficial to third party goals, and therefore it should not be easier for them to form. Though it is definitely not right for the government to be directly interfering like they did with Malcolm X and MLK, as you pointed out in your post, strong third parties pose a danger to the current US election system. With that being said, I do recognize that third parties can contribute valuable differing opinions and allow for a higher level of representation of different groups. However, connecting to the latest topics of our class, a presidential candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. If it was easier for third parties to form and gain strength, there could become a point (especially for a party focused on a movement as strong as Civil Rights) that they would win electoral votes. This could potentially make it much more likely--especially in extreme cases if third parties were extremely easy to create and gain support for--for a presidential election in which no candidate receives the 270 electoral vote majority, which would leave every state with only one vote for the presidency. This would give an extreme advantage to small population states and would lead to a far less democratic presidential election, which is why the potential cons outweigh the pros.
I feel it’s difficult for reformism in our legalistic system in the US. Any decision-making power in the hands of the Department of Justice, for example, literally lets them decide what evidence to collect, present, and how to frame it, which lets them shape the entirety of the narrative. This is the way that MLK was turned into a revisionist defense of state power, rather than recognizing his anti-capitalist and anti-imperialism advocacy.
Reformism within the legalist actors of the US doesn't lead to any meaningful recognition, it just lets the state wash its hands. In fact, it actually kills subversive narratives that leverage Malcolm X by retelling and quashing alternate understanding — the way the state has erased the insurrectionary memory of Nat Turner and Gabriel Prosser.
Continuing to operate within the law forces us to be subjects that engage — be good subjects, be involved, or we’ll take away your rights — ignoring that some individuals are not given access to engaging in the system in the first place, via material violence through segregation, housing policy, etc. This denies agency outside of engagement with the law, which kills potentials for micropolitical action.
I think that the exoneration of the 2 men is too little too late. These men spent 20 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. In my opinion, putting even a single innocent person in prison is a far greater tragedy than letting 10 guilty people go free. The fact that the FBI botched the case and hindered the attempts toward justice by hiding evidence and not fully conducting a thorough investigation is a shameful and absolutely atrocious act. It is essential for justice to be administered correctly and punctually. The fact that the trial was not performed correctly the first time is a great moral wrong. Nobody should have to expect the real investigation to be done 20 years later to get the most just result. These men were convicted and sent to jail, the world thought they were bloodthirsty murderers for 20 years, they could not see their own families for all of that time. 20 years ago, the trial should have been done correctly and justly the first time. When a court gives out their decision, it should be painstakingly pondered until the best decision is made, because the result is essentially what the world takes as truth. Even if exonerated in the future, the pain inflicted by the justice system upon these men is intolerable and should never have occurred in the first place.
According to the LA Times, around 2-10% of U.S. convictions are wrongful. With 2.3 million incarcerated individuals in the U.S., this translates to 46,000 to 230,000 innocent lives behind bars. The thousands of exonerations that have occurred and the exonerations of these two men illustrate the deeply flawed criminal justice system and the need for greater reform and accountability in the courtroom. Exonerations occurring decades after people have been wrongfully put in jail cannot undo or mitigate any of the harm they've undergone, from years of suffocating media coverage to the stripping of their livelihoods. These exonerations are too little and too late, and are a testament to the need for change.
Such an event highlights the flaws in the American justice system. Two men who were innocent served time for a crime they did not commit. I understand that the government had to put people away to appease the public, however, I see that more should have been done to ensure that the right people were charged. 20 years is a large portion of a human's life span and the men falsely charged will never get that back. The justice system clearly has prejudice toward minorities no matter how hard we try to look past that. Third parties serve a large part in bringing public awareness through such films, and I believe that such media should be continuously produced. I don't think that such things will be a serious competitor against political parties, but perhaps the integration of such methods should be sued to inform and influence political agendas.
Post a Comment