I find some of the reactions to this show (and more generally to the incident itself) a bit off kilter (my opinion, of course) there seems to be this underlying belief amongst a few that either (a) the incident represents an exceedingly rare blip on the radar screen and that such miscarriages of justice, while terrible, are exceedingly rare; or (b) such incidents are reflective of a more general governmental corruption that is more pervasive now than in some fictionalized, rosy past era. The truth is that such incidents of wrongful conviction have always been with us, dating back to the birth of the republic. And if you think that prosecutorial/judicial corruption is something new under the sun, then youre just not familiar with American history. Our judicial system is fallible (and will always be fallible) because the people running it are fallible. If anything, one might take some small measure of solace from the fact that changes in technology have increased the likelihood of identifying systematic flaws and highlighting the sorts of human errors that contribute to wrongful conviction eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, etc.
I find some of the reactions to this show (and more generally to the incident itself) a bit off kilter (my opinion, of course) there seems to be this underlying belief amongst a few that either (a) the incident represents an exceedingly rare blip on the radar screen and that such miscarriages of justice, while terrible, are exceedingly rare; or (b) such incidents are reflective of a more general governmental corruption that is more pervasive now than in some fictionalized, rosy past era. The truth is that such incidents of wrongful conviction have always been with us, dating back to the birth of the republic. And if you think that prosecutorial/judicial corruption is something new under the sun, then youre just not familiar with American history. Our judicial system is fallible (and will always be fallible) because the people running it are fallible. If anything, one might take some small measure of solace from the fact that changes in technology have increased the likelihood of identifying systematic flaws and highlighting the sorts of human errors that contribute to wrongful conviction eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, etc.
Personally, I haven't heard anyone ever suggest they think a wrongful conviction is something of a new concept after watching this? But documentaries such as Making a Murderer are important to highlight issues that really need to be addressed.
There's "systematic flaws" and "human errors", but they aren't the same thing as blatant corruption and framing of innocent people. Someone is a suspected murderer less than 3 hours of a person being reported missing? Ok.
I can't say any more without giving spoilers away, but the last week (google news will inform you if you don't know) should be evident enough that things weren't legit....
I find some of the reactions to this show (and more generally to the incident itself) a bit off kilter (my opinion, of course) there seems to be this underlying belief amongst a few that either (a) the incident represents an exceedingly rare blip on the radar screen and that such miscarriages of justice, while terrible, are exceedingly rare; or (b) such incidents are reflective of a more general governmental corruption that is more pervasive now than in some fictionalized, rosy past era. The truth is that such incidents of wrongful conviction have always been with us, dating back to the birth of the republic. And if you think that prosecutorial/judicial corruption is something new under the sun, then youre just not familiar with American history. Our judicial system is fallible (and will always be fallible) because the people running it are fallible. If anything, one might take some small measure of solace from the fact that changes in technology have increased the likelihood of identifying systematic flaws and highlighting the sorts of human errors that contribute to wrongful conviction eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, etc.
Personally, I haven't heard anyone ever suggest they think a wrongful conviction is something of a new concept after watching this? But documentaries such as Making a Murderer are important to highlight issues that really need to be addressed.
There's "systematic flaws" and "human errors", but they aren't the same thing as blatant corruption and framing of innocent people. Someone is a suspected murderer less than 3 hours of a person being reported missing? Ok.
I can't say any more without giving spoilers away, but the last week (google news will inform you if you don't know) should be evident enough that things weren't legit....
Not quite sure Im following your distinction. Surely you dont think this case is somehow unique in demonstrating blatant corruption. Is what happened terrible? Sure. Is it unique? No.
I find some of the reactions to this show (and more generally to the incident itself) a bit off kilter (my opinion, of course) there seems to be this underlying belief amongst a few that either (a) the incident represents an exceedingly rare blip on the radar screen and that such miscarriages of justice, while terrible, are exceedingly rare; or (b) such incidents are reflective of a more general governmental corruption that is more pervasive now than in some fictionalized, rosy past era. The truth is that such incidents of wrongful conviction have always been with us, dating back to the birth of the republic. And if you think that prosecutorial/judicial corruption is something new under the sun, then youre just not familiar with American history. Our judicial system is fallible (and will always be fallible) because the people running it are fallible. If anything, one might take some small measure of solace from the fact that changes in technology have increased the likelihood of identifying systematic flaws and highlighting the sorts of human errors that contribute to wrongful conviction eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, etc.
Personally, I haven't heard anyone ever suggest they think a wrongful conviction is something of a new concept after watching this? But documentaries such as Making a Murderer are important to highlight issues that really need to be addressed.
There's "systematic flaws" and "human errors", but they aren't the same thing as blatant corruption and framing of innocent people. Someone is a suspected murderer less than 3 hours of a person being reported missing? Ok.
I can't say any more without giving spoilers away, but the last week (google news will inform you if you don't know) should be evident enough that things weren't legit....
Not quite sure Im following your distinction. Surely you dont think this case is somehow unique in demonstrating blatant corruption. Is what happened terrible? Sure. Is it unique? No.
Replies
Personally, I haven't heard anyone ever suggest they think a wrongful conviction is something of a new concept after watching this? But documentaries such as Making a Murderer are important to highlight issues that really need to be addressed.
There's "systematic flaws" and "human errors", but they aren't the same thing as blatant corruption and framing of innocent people. Someone is a suspected murderer less than 3 hours of a person being reported missing? Ok.
I can't say any more without giving spoilers away, but the last week (google news will inform you if you don't know) should be evident enough that things weren't legit....
Not quite sure Im following your distinction. Surely you dont think this case is somehow unique in demonstrating blatant corruption. Is what happened terrible? Sure. Is it unique? No.
I didn't once say it was a unique case. /thread