The question focuses on the Critical Race juristic theory and requires me to Assume I

were one of the jurors, and how I would have voted in the circumstance.

The issues to be resolved from the critical race theory perspective are stated
hereinbelow;
1. Whether or not the father’s act of killing the two men who attacked his daughter
can be seen as an act of vigilante justice.
2. Whether or not the father’s actions could be interpreted as self-defense, given that
he was protecting his child.
3. Whether or not the composition of the jury, being exclusively white, raises the
question of whether racial bias

In applying the issues to the facts of the case;

The critical race theory (CRT) is an interdisciplinary academic field that focuses on
the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political
laws, and media. It considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, not just
based on individuals’ prejudices.

CRT views race as a social construct with no biological basis. It argues that racism
and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle
social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of
individuals.

A key concept in CRT is intersectionality, which examines how different forms of

inequality and identity are affected by interconnections of race, class, gender, and
disability. CRT scholars argue that the social and legal construction of race advances
the interests of white people at the expense of people of color.

CRT originated in the United States in the post–civil rights era, as 1960s landmark
civil rights laws were being eroded and schools were being re-segregated. With racial
inequalities persisting even after civil rights legislation and color-blind laws were
enacted, CRT scholars in the 1970s and 1980s began reworking and expanding
critical legal studies (CLS) theories on class, economic structure, and the law to
examine the role of US law in perpetuating racism.

Furthermore, the facts of the case is extracted from John Grisham’s novel “A Time to
Kill”. It presents a complex legal and moral dilemma. The father’s act of killing the
men who attacked his daughter can be seen as a crime (murder), but also as an act of
vigilantism driven by a perceived failure of the justice system to adequately protect
and seek justice for his child.

From a CRT perspective, this case highlights the systemic racism and bias that can
exist within the justice system. The jury, composed entirely of white individuals, may
not fully understand or empathize with the experiences of the black father and his
daughter. This could potentially lead to a biased verdict.

The lawyer’s strategy of asking the jurors to imagine the victim as a white girl and the
attackers as black men is a clear commentary on racial bias and the potential for
empathy to influence justice. This could be seen as an attempt to expose the jurors’
potential racial biases and make them consider how their perceptions might be
influenced by race.

In conclusion, I would not have sided with the jurors solely based on the emotional
manipulation of picturing the child as a white girl. Instead, my decision would be
grounded in the facts of the case and the application of legal principles. Specifically,
the father’s act was a direct response to the horrific crime committed against his
daughter. Even under criminal law, he could potentially have a defense. Applying
Critical Race Theory, it’s important to consider the context and not simply view the
situation as a black man committing murder. In a similar situation involving a white
man, defenses might have been established to lessen his punishment. Therefore, my
decision would be based on a comprehensive understanding of the situation, rather
than a manipulated emotional response.