The Innocence Project

In reading over your posts, I was particularly struck by what Cori wrote. To wit:

I believe that what happened to Adams was terrible, but I agree with Christian that this does not happen everyday. If there was a movie made about this, it shows that this was a big deal that it does not happen very often. I agree that it would be terrible if an innocent person was sitting in jail for something they did not commit, but it is difficult for people to be right all the time. Everyone makes mistakes, including the people working in law enforcement. As Jim and Elizabeth said, you have to have faith in the system and I believe that. The system has to work because if it didn’t there would be some other type of system that would exist with flaws. Also, the people following the system have the ability to change the system if it doesn’t work, so I think that we need to have faith in the system. I agree with everyone that this situation was terrible, but I also think that since a movie was made about it, it was a unique situation.

What I appreciate about this post is Cori's grappling with the ethical and social ramifications of what happened to Randall Adams. We have to have faith in the system--it is the system, after all, and the implications of it being imperfect are terrifying. Adams spending, what, 12 years in prison? 2 years waiting to be executed? And if this happened to him, who else has it happened to? And have innocent people been executed?

So take a look here. Just take 15 minutes or so to browse this sight. Look at some of the cases. Look at the reasons for why these cases happen. They actually support much of what Elizabeth talked about. What do you think?

The Thin Blue Line. How The System Works.

I apologize for the lateness of this entry. We appreciate you guys hanging in there for this different sort of film. It's different even for a documentary, though the devices Errol Morris first used here, dramatizations primarily, are old hat now--watch America's Most Wanted sometime. Watch fellow documentary filmmakers talk about the influence this movie had.



This story would be a comedy if wasn't true. Randall Adams was convicted for a crime he didn't commit. He did spend 2 years on death row. And David Harris kept committing crime after crime and no one took him seriously.

So, as we asked in class,and in the context of our conversation with Jim and Elizabeth, what is your reaction to this horror story? And do you think this could ever happen to you? Why or why not?

Elizabeth and Jim

Two people I wouldn't mind being: Elizabeth the death penalty defense attorney and Jim, the former FBI agent, now federal prosecutor. So: what struck you about them? Just give your general reaction and/or one thing about each of them that stayed with you, and why.

"If I'm Wrong, Then God Forgive Me."

Kelly here answers a question that we have come back to several times this short term. What happens when you cross the line and you are wrong? In Kelly's case, what if he had given Luis Hernandez "the worst beating of his life" and Hernandez didn't commit the crime? Again, we know Hernandez did, but the scenario leaves open the distinct possibility/probability that Kelly would beat an innocent man. So: what did you think of what Kelly did? For this one: forget that Hernandez is guilty. That's not the point. Would you condone Kelly's actions? Think too about how Kelly manipulates his suspect into the position of having to confess or get beaten. What do you think of Kelly's actions in this situation?

Homicide: Bop Gun.

A pretty intense episode, don't you think? Just to remind you...



One of its strengths, I think, is that you never can quite tell what it's about, or who's it about, or how we are supposed to feel about the characters, cops and criminals. So: address one of the following questions.

1. Detective Garner expressed no sympathy for perps, criminals. Did you have any sympathy for the criminals here? Why or why not?

2. Ellison, played by Robin Williams, demands Felton be taken off the case after he hears Beau and the others making fun of him. This is followed by Gee, the Lt., saying, "[[Felton's] not going to feel what you feel. None of us are...You need him to solve your murder, not to grieve." It's possible Giardello is just covering for his insensitive, jerky detective. Or else, he doesn't disapprove of Felton and the others' behavior. Make a case for the way the detectives behave in this scene. And does it make them bad human beings?

3. What's the role of race in this episode?

4. Howard can't let go of believing that Vaughn Perkins didn't do the killing. But he did. And at the end she seems...what? And why would she feel this way?

The Real Thing

So what do you all think about Detectives Harris and Garner? Did you enjoy this couple hours? And further: what did they help clarify or illuminate or add to or confuse about what we've been talking about and watching?

For the record: we loved them. This was better than last year. And I somehow think that if Detective Garner stopped any of us for a traffic violation, she wouldn't let us go with just a warning.

Discuss!

Rush

Maybe Christian is right: showing this movie to 6th graders (not that he said 6th graders) would make all of them think, oh, 147 times before they would ever consider taking drugs. For example:



Yet the film itself has a deeply ambiguous take on drugs, as we talked about in class (not that it is espousing taking them). It is also ambiguous about its protagonists Jim and Kristen in their roles as undercover police. They can walk away from this job anytime, but they don't: and I don't get the idea that they are moral crusaders against narcotics, like their captain. Something else is at play here. So write about one of the following questions in a couple hundred words.

1. Why is the film called "Rush"?

2. Can Jim and Kristen conceivably do their job without getting snared in a morally complicated position?

3. How do you feel about these two? How much responsibility do they need to take or should take concerning their ever more problematic actions?

The situation involving Scorpio and Harry is one that is difficult to analyze. Although if I were in Harry's position, my gut instinct would be to kick the crap out of that guy. However, I would think about the consequences of my actions. Everyone has rights, even suspects. Also, just because someone is accused of a crime, does not mean that they are guilty. In this case, Scorpio was guilty. I feel like oftentimes police officers have tough choices to make when it comes to justice. For example, when Harry "tortured" Scorpio I felt like it was for a good reason, but it probably wasn't the best way to handle the situation. Also, in the movie when Harry got upset because Scorpio was not going to get arrested, I felt the same way. They could have found something to convict Scorpio on because the victim and her family did deserve justice. It didn't seem right to let Scorpio go after he killed the young girl. I can't even begin to imagine how upset and frustrated her parents must have been. Although in this movie the suspect was actually guilty sometimes people really are innocent.

Justice, Dirty Harry Style

Dudley Smith asks Ed Exley if he would be willing to plant evidence, beat a confession, and shoot someone in the back to ensure justice (however you wish to define it) will be served. We had you write about justice and expediency and race last night. Now just to get even more specific...Is Harry Callahan right doing what he does? And he does quite a bit not by the proverbial book, as the DA tells him below:



And of course his final act in the film:



So respond: are you like Andrew, 50/50, or like Rick, who when he thinks about his daughters, says, "Well, if that's what it takes," (or something along those lines), or like me, who finds Harry to be the flip side of Scorpio. Or else, as Harry says, "What about the rights of the victims"?

whitney

Race plays a key role in our understanding of the justice system. Although it is the duty of the government to punish criminals, it is also their duty to ensure that no one is unjustly accused or punished. For example, in L.A. Confidential although the four african american men were guilty of a horrendous crime, they were not guilty of the crime that they were accused of. However, the african american men were easy targets for the Nite Owl accusations because of their criminal records. Also race plays a pivotal role in drug law enforcement. Minorities are oftentimes victimized by unjust treatment by law enforcers. For example, although all racial groups have been reported to use drugs, minorites are far more likely to be imprisoned for drug usage. This probably dates back to the racial discrimination that has existed in America for many years.

LA Confidential According to Rick Goldstein

Rick had a whole bunch of questions ready for our discussion of L.A. Confidential--but this time, taking a page out of his book, I said let's move onto Dirty Harry. The questions, though, are excellent ones, and are a great bridge between this movie and Dirty Harry. These questions are more theoretical and personal than text driven, so everyone should have something original and interesting to say. You can, of course, refer back to the film. Write a couple hundred words in response to one of these questions.

1. Are cops held to a higher standard of justice than civilians?

2. Does justice depend upon expediency or the rights of individuals?

3. How does race play into our understanding of justice?

L.A. Confidential

I have to agree with Whitney on the fact that the black men did not deserve to die. Even though raping someone is a horrible act to commit I do not believe the police had the right to torture and kill men who were innocent of the crime. Also the fact that the head police officer, who later kills a fellow officer, knew that the men being suspected of the massacre were innocent, but set them up to die makes me strongly feel that the black men definitely did not deserve what they got. However, in my opinion law is not fair because of the people that enforce it. The law is designed to be fair, but as we saw in L.A. Confidential the people in charge aren't always fair and many times abuse their power. The officers used their power to intimidate and ultimately kill men of a crime they did not commit. The police did not hesitate to murder and then plant evidence on the black man in the house and then later kill the three suspected black men. The police did not give the black men a chance to get a lawyer or defend themselves, but manipulated the situation to make the men hear selected clips of each other to get a confession out of them. I do think that the black men should have been convicted of raping that girl, but it was completely wrong for them to have been blamed and killed for the massacre of all those people.

Unfortunately, what happened to the four african american men is not uncommon in the real world. Many people oftentimes get convicted of a crime that they did not commit. Yes, they committed horrific crimes, but I don't think they deserved to die because of wrong accusations. Because of their racial and criminal background they were easy targets for suspects of the massacre. I am not quite sure what their punishment should be but, I believe that they should have been convicted for what they did. Although I am unsure on how I would go about solving the case, I feel like there was a more moral way to solve the massacre. One scene that was most shocking to me took place when the police officers raided the african americans' home. During this scene the police told everyone not to move. After they instructed the men not to move, something fell off of the table and the police officer immediately shot the man in the chest. I assume that the police officer believed the guy was trying to pull out a weapon. While I watched this scene I could only think of a similar scene that took place in the movie entitled Crash.

"Use All Necessary Force. The People of Los Angeles Demand It."

So says The Chief of Police to his troops before they go out searching for the "four Negroes" who did the Nite Owl massacre. And indeed all force necessary is used. They are beaten, they are manipulated, they are killed. And they are innocent of the massacre. They aren't innocent men: they kidnap, rape, and hold prisoner a young woman. One of them likes to kill dogs. But they are innocent of the crime they are accused of. So what is your reaction to what happens to them? Not only to them being killed, but also being tortured? They are bad men: yet do they deserve what happens to them? Write a couple hundred words. Feel free to agree or disagree with what others say, and/or to use another post as a jumping off place for your post.

Homicide vs. Other Shows

I thought that Homicide was much more realistic than most shows that I watch about law enforcement. The show did not play the cops up as good or bad they were just people trying to do there job. Some were nicer than others some were motivated for different reasons but all of that made it much more realistic. The other thing about Homicide was that the actors looked more realistic than just Hollywood actors. The main difference to me tho was that they were just detectives and in most shows they show more about the actually cops. I guess it is different to see the different part of the law and murder investigation in a show. At the same time seeing the other side made the show feel much more realistic.

Differences.

I thought everything happened much quicker in Homicide than in Cops. In Homicide a gun fight broke out right away, while in Cops they follow the man with the knife for a good 2 minutes before they shot him. This is obviously becuase it makes for more exciting television to have a gun fight rather than the man with the knife surrendering and dropping his knife.

From what I briefly saw of Brooklyn South it did not follow what I picture of cops. The show began with a large amount of violence and the situation took place right outside of the police station. I personally feel that most violence does not occur right outside of a police station. The violence involved blood and a large amount of cops. As we have seen in some the episodes of Cops, a large group (about 20 people) does not show up to every situation. In the beginning of Brooklyn South, lots of police arrived at the scenes with guns and I personally believe that does not occur often among police. The scene was also very gory to begin with and that, to me, made it seem more dramatic and less real. The scene seemed a little over the top compared to what happens in real life (this statement might not be accurate considering I do not know what happens among the police force). Overall, the beginning of the show seemed dramatic and unlikely of a normal day in the life of police.

Homicide v. Brooklyn South

The two shows Homicide and Brooklyn South differed greatly for me. Homicide did not feel like a cop show to me because no one was shooting or killing anyone like on Brooklyn South. I liked Homicide better because the show had actors that act like normal people. The cops on Homicide were funny and not overly gorgeous like on Brooklyn South. I believe the big difference on Homicide was that the cops showed up after the crime occured instead of trying to prevent it. The incident on Brooklyn South seemed unrealistic for all those cops to have gotten shot and then finally somehow one cop takes him down. However, we did see on the show Cops how it is possible for one man to cause so much chaos, but he ended up being the only one killed. The cases on Homicide seemed like they could happen as opposed to Brooklyn South. Even the setting of the cop's office appeared more realistic in Homicide whereas in Brooklyn South the cops were all lined up in rows receiving their assignments. The office in Homicide had coffee and desks and the one in Brooklyn South had a podium in which the officer in charge gave out commands. So I personally enjoyed Homicide even though it did not feel completely like your typical cop show.

One difference between these cop show scenarios I noticed is the race factor. For example, the black officer from Homicide pointed out that the kid who killed Burger would get off easy, implying the race issue, but not openly saying it. Also, I think in each Cops situation, the culprits were people of color, wether or not the officers were (most were not). I agree with Shannon (and a number of other people) when saying that another difference that was noted was the drama of each situation situation. In Brooklyn South the man with the gun taking hostages, officers getting shot, and snipers was a lot more “high drama” than the real life situations that the class viewed on Cops (the drink shirtless guy) and Homicide (rape and murder/ strangled guy), which, in agreement to Emma K., is the least dramatic show. A difference seen among each show involving the policemen and women strongly influences how each scenario is perceived. In Brooklyn South all of the officers look and talk like actors (handsome, funny, etc.), which portrays a heroic yet some what false, image of officers, where as in the other shows the policemen and women were more accurate to how the real world operates in law enforcement, and how real high risk situations operate ( for example, the man in the wheelchair in Cops).

Homicide differed from Brooklyn South in a couple of ways. For example, in Brooklyn South the opening scene started off with violence. In Homicide, the first scene portrayed a murder victim as oppose to portraying a violent scene. Also, the characters in Homicide did a better job when it came to being realistic. They were more humorous and that resulted in a more realistic feel for me. At one point I was enjoying Brooklyn South but then when the theme song came on, I lost interest. The music didn't seem to go along with the intense palm sweating scene. The theme song resembled that of a "dream American family" t.v. show. Although I enjoyed watching Homicide more than Brooklyn South, I enjoyed the setting of Homicide. The setting in the city was more intriguing to me because I felt like I was actually in the show. The squad room setting was far less exciting. Overall, I felt like the shows differed, but they also had many similarities.

"Life is a Mystery. Just Accept It."

So says Det. Steve Crosetti. And as Dorothy says in The Wizard of Oz, we're not in Kansas anymore--nor the world of Brooklyn South or The Closer or CSI or NCIS, or any of the sources you all mentioned in class today. Look at the scene we didn't get a chance to see today (but will tomorrow):



So our question is: how does what you saw in Homicide make it different than what we saw in Brooklyn South and another cop show that you watch regularly--or semi-regularly? What distinguishes it from these other shows? Think of the narrative action itself--the plot and story. Think of the characters and how they are portrayed: how they act; how they dress; how they look. Think about the universe the show takes place in: the squad room itself; the city itself; the people in the city. Write about 200 words. Be grammatical. Have this done by the time school begins tomorrow. Feel free to respond to what your classmates say.