State vs. Mann

After watching a mock-trial of the iconic Supreme Court case of State vs. Mann between my classmates, I have learned an extensive amount about the case and the precedent that this case set. The case occurred originally in North Carolina in 1830 and involves a slave being shot. The slave was owned by Elizabeth Jones but was shot by John Mann, who had hired the slave, Lydia, from Jones. The state (my classmates)argued that because Mann shot Lydia in the back as punishment and took her life, it should be deemed by law cruel and unusual punishment. They realized that their is a chance that the defense would argue that because Lydia is a slave she is not considered a person and so she can't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In response to this they described the law of the time which stated that slaves were considered property and because Mann had slain Lydia it must be considered destruction of property and Mann was still in the wrong. They also cited precedent from the case of State vs. Hale in which a slave was beaten in an extreme manner and the court sided with the state that extreme punishment on a slave was unjust. The defense (the classmates opposed) argued that because she was a slave and considered property she couldn't be held under common law and so murder, assault, and other crimes are not applicable. In addition they cited the 3/5 Clause that stated that escaped slaves were allowed to be captured and punished. They argued that because Lydia was attempting to escape, Mann was in the right to punish her in any was he pleases. The court ruled that owners had absolute power over their slaves and could not be deemed in the wrong for violence against their slaves; however, I believe the accusers produced a better case and Mann should have been charged.