Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) Mock Trial
dpupdatemocktrial.pdf | |
File Size: | 124 kb |
File Type: |
Reflection
This project was a mock trial of the Korematsu v. U.S. case which determined the constitutionality of internment camps. For this project we were assigned a historical figure who played an important role in the Korematsu v. U.S. case. We researched their background and their relevance to the case. I researched Karl Bendesten, a general who helped write the executive order that created internment camps in WWII. I answered questions for the trial based on the perspective of Bendensten. Bendensten believed that all people of Japanese decent in the U.S should be interned based on military necessity following Pearl Harbor.
In our mock trial, my team, the U.S., who was arguing in favor of constitutionality, won. The judges in our trial determined that Korematsu knowingly broke the law, which was the executive order, by fleeing the exclusion zones. I think our closing statement was the strongest part of our argument. We stated that in times of war the U.S. government has the authority to make certain precautions in the name of national security, and that anyone knowingly breaking those requirements, like Korematsu, should be prosecuted. It seemed to me that the other team lacked concrete evidence as to why internment camps were not okay and they were overly relying on moral arguments. In my opinion in real life, it seems the U.S. government had legal grounds to win the case, but I would have been in favor of Korematsu winning and discrediting the camps.
I thought that the actual trial and being in the courtroom was fun. It was a long and stressful project with a lot of work, but overall it was worthwhile. I did not know a lot about WWII and the interment camps so I learned a lot of new things. The most difficult part of this project was the readings and time management with all the handouts and different pieces of the project. I recommend to the person who has my role next year, that they take the time to do a lot of background research and really get to know their character and their role in the trial.
In our mock trial, my team, the U.S., who was arguing in favor of constitutionality, won. The judges in our trial determined that Korematsu knowingly broke the law, which was the executive order, by fleeing the exclusion zones. I think our closing statement was the strongest part of our argument. We stated that in times of war the U.S. government has the authority to make certain precautions in the name of national security, and that anyone knowingly breaking those requirements, like Korematsu, should be prosecuted. It seemed to me that the other team lacked concrete evidence as to why internment camps were not okay and they were overly relying on moral arguments. In my opinion in real life, it seems the U.S. government had legal grounds to win the case, but I would have been in favor of Korematsu winning and discrediting the camps.
I thought that the actual trial and being in the courtroom was fun. It was a long and stressful project with a lot of work, but overall it was worthwhile. I did not know a lot about WWII and the interment camps so I learned a lot of new things. The most difficult part of this project was the readings and time management with all the handouts and different pieces of the project. I recommend to the person who has my role next year, that they take the time to do a lot of background research and really get to know their character and their role in the trial.