Reading newspapers or watching TV at home, at least we find one article or news describing a killing, a shooting, or an armed robbery. With all these problems, we are in fear but cannot avoid hearing and dealing with them. They happen every day and some time justice system blunders and leads to wrongly convict people for what they do not commit. This is reality of wrecked system that is resulted by injustice and corruption. Ultimately, Errol Morris confirms this reality based on a true story of an innocent convicted Randal Adams for a criminal case by creating a film, The Thin Blue Line. David Harris, an important accuser, claims Adams was a murderer and shot Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer. With Morris’ suspicion of Adams’ innocence, he turns himself to be a detective movie director and investigates the criminal case that occurred in Dallas, Texas in 1976. His goal is to show that Adams was wrongly convicted and justice system was flawed. By using juxtaposition and recreations, Morris successfully contrasts Adams and Harris to show that Adams is innocent and Harris is guilty, intensifies distrust of the legality in Adams’ wrong conviction to prove a flawed legal system, and evinces the eye witnesses are discreditable. Morris opens the film by juxtaposing the narratives by the participants in the interviews in order to show Adams’ innocent and Harris’ guilt. The beginning of the film introduces two people that one was believably wrongly convicted and the other was suspiciously a real murderer. Adams who was criminally convicted is interviewed with a white shirt. He narrates his life all the way from Ohio to end up getting a job in Dallas. By showing Adams on the white shirt, Morris tells us Adams’ innocence and proposes our... ... middle of paper ... ... to believe with, but he returns back to straight narratives in the end. In conclusion, the story of Randall Adams’ unjust imprisonment is presented as an intersection of several people’s lives. Instead of simplifying the case for the sake of clarity, Morris points out where many stories are invited - the imagination of the witnesses, TV crimes dramas, and scenes from the drive-in movie Adams and Harris attended. He complicates the legal storytelling and his film tells that it is not easy to build these aspects of an investigation into a very structure and style. Morris however successfully closes the film by gaining the audience’s distrust of the legal system and proving that Adams was innocent. With Morris’ effort on The Thin Blue Line, the truth is found; Adams was eventually released from the death row and the Texas legal system admitted its wrongly conviction.
This examination will look at the short story “Killings” by Andre Dubus and the main characters in the story. The story begins on a warm August day with the burial of Matt and Ruth Fowler’s youngest son Frank. Frank’s age: “twenty-one years, eight months, and four days” (Dubus 107). Attending the funeral were Matt, his wife Ruth, their adult children and spouses. Matt’s family is extremely distraught over the murder of their youngest son/brother, in their own way. There are implications of wanting to kill Richard Strout, the guy accused of being the murderer: “I should kill him” (107), as stated after the service. This comment is considered a fore-shadowing of what is to come in the thought progression of Matt and Ruth.
In the court room Mr. Hooks makes a point with the evidence he is given and testimonies by witnesses to prosecute Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Hooks takes some drastic measures by using personal attacks and being prejudice towards the defendant to convince the jurors that Mr. Miyamoto is a killer. During the trail Alvin hooks b...
On May 7th 2000, fifteen year old Brenton Butler was accused of the murder of Mary Ann Stephens, who had been fatally shot in the head while walking down a breezeway of a hotel with her husband. Two and a half hours later, Butler is seen walking a mile away from where the incident occurred, and is picked up by the police because he fit the description of the individual who shot Mary Ann Stephens. However, the only characteristic of the description that Butler featured was the color of his skin. Police then brought Butler to the scene of the crime in order for Mary Ann Stephens’s husband, James Stephens, to confirm whether or not Butler was the individual who had shot his wife. Almost immediately, Stephens identifies Butler as his wife’s killer.
“Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase (Charles Caleb Colton).” Colton describes that once corruption has begun, it is difficult to stop. Corruption has existed in this country, let alone this very planet, since the beginning of time. With corruption involves: money, power, and favoritism. Many people argue today that racism is still a major problem to overcome in today’s legal system. American author (and local Chicago resident) Steve Bogira jumps into the center of the United States justice system and tells the story of what happens in a typical year for the Cook Country Criminal Courthouse, which has been noted as one of the most hectic and busiest felony courthouses in the entire country. After getting permission from one of the courthouse judges’ (Judge Locallo) he was allowed to venture in and get eyewitness accounts of what the American Legal System is and how it operates. Not only did he get access to the courtroom but: Locallo’s chambers, staff, even his own home. In this book we get to read first hand account of how America handles issues like: how money and power play in the court, the favoritism towards certain ethnic groups, and the façade that has to be put on by both the defendants and Cook County Workers,
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way. Clearly the legal system was biased, which worked in Casey Anthony’s favor, freeing a murderer.
The death penalty, a subject that is often the cause of major controversy, has become an integral part of the southern justice system in recent years. The supporters and opponents of this issue have heatedly debated each other about whether or not the death penalty should be allowed. They back their arguments with moral, logical, and ethical appeals, as seen in the essays by Ed Koch and David Bruck. Although both authors are on opposite sides of the issue, they use the same ideas to back up their argument, while ignoring others that they don’t have evidence for. Koch and Bruck’s use of moral, logical, and ethical persuasion enhance both of their arguments and place a certain importance on the issue of the death penalty, making the readers come to the realization that it is more than just life and death, or right and wrong; there are so many implications that make the issue much more 3-dimensional. In dealing with politics and controversial issues such as capital punishment.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Released in 1967, “Cool Hand Luke” continues to be one of the most popular movies in American history. (Belton, 2008) The movie starred famed actor Paul Newman and was based on the trials and tribulations occurring inside a Florida prison camp. One of the main reasons why Cool Hand Luke continues to be relevant today is due to its incisive observations regarding the criminal justice system. While the movie was released over forty years ago, the relevance of Cool Hand Luke continues today. This paper will provide a synopsis of the movie and character analysis of Cool Hand Luke; in addition, the paper will analyze the movie from the perspectives of someone unfamiliar with the criminal justice system as well as a professional in the criminal justice system.
One it depicts the problems that African American male defendants have in getting a fair trial. Given the negative police actions, it is reasonable for many African Americans to accept that police racism exists, and that this racism would lead into false biases of framing African Americans defendants in a court setting. It also shows the difference in treatment of whites who are the exploiters, consistently showing up as the “good guys”. Their superiority is taken as justified while non -whites are the “bad guys”. In Kopplemans, Understanding Human Differences section one he describes how the majority group creates names and labels for the minority groups. When a dominant group has the power to label the subordinate group labels are used to define and control the subordinate group. The media portrays these groups in negative ways (Koppleman, 2005). In “A Time to Kill”, African Americans are labeled as enemies of the community, the story is predicated on the fact that society is so racist that this father has to avenge his daughter himself. If the little girl had been white, there would have been prosecution to the fullest extent of law; however since the girl was black, he couldn’t depend on our system justice to prevail in a positive outcome. Unfortunately, this stereotype is deeply ingrained in our popular culture and
(Baude, 21). This quote provides details of why the finality in the decisions regarding death may not accurately represent the justice the accused deserves. It augments the ultimate overarching point made by Scheck and Rust-Tierney that we should not determine death. Despite the strong points made throughout the debate, there were key issues that Schneck and Rust-Tierney adequately refuted. The first was their failure when they lacked a counter to Scheidegger’s point on how inmates are often treated in the facilities themselves.
Before proposing a reform to the American criminal justice system, we must first examine the problems that plague the process of justice on all levels. American society plays an important role in shaping the criminal justice system. Their beliefs and values determine the type of deviants and the consequences of the crimes. Often their beliefs contradict each other.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.