State Vs. Mann Mock Trial

The 1829 decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann declared that chattel slaves had no rights from their masters. Thomas Ruffin authored the opinion of the court, in which he asserted the “full dominion of the owner over the slave.” The defendant in the case was John Mann, a North Carolinian who had been renting a slave named Lydia. When she committed a trifling offense, Mann whipped her. During the whipping, Lydia attempted to escape, so Mann shot her, gravely wounding her. North Carolina authorities deemed his response to her escape attempt disproportionate and charged him with assault and battery. In the criminal trial, the jury ruled against him. He appealed, claiming that assault on a slave by her master could not be indictable since a slave was property of her master. The case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court shortly after Thomas Ruffin‘s long tenure on the court began. At the beginning of the opinion, he registered his uneasiness with the case: “The struggle, too, in the Judge’s own breast between the feelings of the man, and the duty of the magistrate is a severe one.”

In 1830 The Supreme Court of North Carolina made a decision that states that slave owners had absolute authority over their slaves and could not be found guilty of committing violence against them. This decision was concentrated around the case in which Elizabeth Jones owned a slave named Lydia and she hired her out for work to John Mann of Chowan County. Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she tried to escape a lashing. Mann was found guilty of battery by a jury of twelve white men drawn from his town and the court assessed a five-dollar fine. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the conviction on the grounds that

slaves were the absolute property of their owners who could not be punished at common law unless the legislature authorized such punishment. Analyzing the situation from ethical perspective we can refer to the definition of human autonomy and informed consent which states “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” Whereas, as an ethical doctrine, Informed consent refers to a process of communication whereby a person is enabled to make an informed and voluntary decision about accepting or declining a certain action towards his or her own body. There are three major aspects we can use in order to analyze whether an action is right or wrong. From Utilitarian point of view “An action will then be said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t.” Utilitarianism doesn’t discriminate or encourage egoism. It is wrong to harm others to benefit yourself because everyone counts. Causing Harm to Lydia doesn’t lead to positive consequences and doesn’t produce happiness to anyone involved, which Utilitarians find central while analyzing whether an action is right or wrong. Therefore, what Mann did to Lydia can’t be justified from ethical standpoint.

The 1829 decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann declared that chattel slaves had no rights from their masters. Thomas Ruffin authored the opinion of the court, in which he asserted the “full dominion of the owner over the slave.” The defendant in the case was John Mann, a North Carolinian who had been renting a slave named Lydia. When she committed a trifling offense, Mann whipped her. During the whipping, Lydia attempted to escape, so Mann shot her, gravely wounding her. North Carolina authorities deemed his response to her escape attempt disproportionate and charged him with assault and battery. In the criminal trial, the jury ruled against him. He appealed, claiming that assault on a slave by her master could not be indictable since a slave was property of her master. The case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court shortly after Thomas Ruffin‘s long tenure on the court began. At the beginning of the opinion, he registered his uneasiness with the case: “The struggle, too, in the Judge’s own breast between the feelings of the man, and the duty of the magistrate is a severe one.”