If Jim is a property, then he cannot participate in the trial but he does. Therefore, both the court and Jim’s owner recognize his right to stand for the trial. If Jim is recognized as the party in the trial, then he should be and is granted with the rights which are normally granted under the US Constitution to any citizen involved in the trial. If the court recognizes Jim a citizen then the court should respect his right to freedom and the judge’s ruling should be definitely in favor of Jim. He should stay in Massachusetts.
Consequently, the fair trial can help to take the right decision but Jim is likely to stay in Massachusetts because his transfer to Virginia is likely to lead to his enslavement. In this regard, conscience is not prior factor that determines such a decision. Instead, the protection of Constitutional rights of Jim is the major factor that determines such a decision. In fact, the observation and respect to Constitutional rights of all parties involved in the trial is very important but, at the same time, it becomes an unsurpassable barrier for Jim’s owner to win the case.
The analysis of the case of Jim reveals the fact that his rights cannot be violated, whereas Jim’s owners wants to limit his freedom and to end up with his enslavement, which contradicts not only to the state laws of Massachusetts but also to federal laws and the US Constitution. The US Constitution incorporates the Bill of Rights, which grants all individuals with equal rights. Therefore, Jim cannot be deprived of any right just like Jim’s owner. The court ruling in Massachusetts will be grounded on the state regulations and laws and federal norms. naturally, Jim’s owner can appeal further at the federal level to make Jim to return to Virginia, where he will be enslaved again but the owner’s chances to win the case are low.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Jim’s case reveals the importance of the accurate observation of due process in court procedures because the violation of procedures may lead to the violation of basic human rights, such as the right to freedom. The court should take the decision in favor of Jim. At any rate, Jim should stay in Massachusetts and be tried in this state. His transfer has no legal ground, while arguments of Jim’s owners are inconsistent in legal terms because Jim is treated as a free citizen in Massachusetts, whereas Jim’s owners views the situation from the slave owner perspective which is not valid in Massachusetts, because the state is free of slavery. Consequently, Jim has the right and possibility to stay in Massachusetts, while Jim’s owner has to prove his rights but still he can hardly win the case.