The film The Thin Blue Line is about the murder of a Dallas Police officer Robert Wood, the trial and appeals involved in the entire case. This film investigates the trial and the man accused of murder Randall Dale Adams and the man who accused him David Ray Harris. It consists of interviews of the prosecution, defense, investigators, the judge, witnesses and the two prime suspects Randall Dale Adams and David Ray Harris, also a re-enactment of the murder.
The statement in the film where Melvyn Carson Bruder states “that a great prosecutor could convict an innocent man and any prosecutor can convict a guilty man.” I found very memorable and brought different thoughts to mind. I think when certain evidence is presented to a prosecutor there are certain judgements that bring out results. In this specific case, David Ray Harris was 16. He used his age to his advantage and was persuasive character. Additionally, he could not be convicted with the death penalty.
There are other aspects of how the police force wanted to prosecute the killer, there was a whole month without the police even being close to having a lead in this murder. It’s not just how to prosecution proceeds in a trial that determines the entire outcome, its dependent upon a myriad of details that take place within the trial itself.
It seems strange that a prosecutor would be identified as great for wrongfully convicting someone, it was not done purposely, they are just trying to uphold the law and make decisions based on the evidence presented. The perception is skewed whichever way you look at it, it’s hard to sit here and blame one specific entity dealing with the entire justice system.
This quote brought to mind in how the film portrayed the judge specifically to me, “In The Thin Blue Line (1988) Errol Morris mocks the credibility of Judge Metcalfe and Mrs. Miller a witness against Randall Adams, by cutting away to silly low-budget Hollywood films to discredit their testimony.” I think most preconceived ideas of judges is that they bring their own background, experiences, beliefs, political views to the bench which is entirely wrong. They are impartial to all of these things while their are in a court of law. They are there to uphold the law and make decisions objectively. I’m not saying that every judge is perfect and every judgement that is made is objective. That is what their oath of office states and that is their role in the justice system.
It is interesting that Errol Morris seems to offers up the opinion of the judges’ role in the trial because of glaring flaws his in other cases involving police officers. This trial was a jury trial so the outcome of the sentence was solely based on the votes of the citizens. Which offers up thoughts on the roles of judges in society and how they are perceived and sometimes targeted for their beliefs outside of the courtroom. I guess my opinion of judges is a bit different because my mom is a judge and it offers a different perspective.
I find it to be an extremely difficult thing when the wrong person is convicted. This brings a negative view of the whole justice system. It brings up the question of how can you begin to re-pay them? How can you get years of your life back? They usually get a sum of money but is that really equal to years of your life?
No comments:
Post a Comment