Uncategorized – Page 2 – Literature and Law Spring 2020

The Wire: Another Hard Truth About the Justice System

As a Baltimore Maryland native, it’s customary to have seen HBO’s “The Wire”. The series depicts Baltimore City as crime ridden and devoid of any sense of justice; where drugs and other vices flood the streets and the police turn a blind eye. If you have ever been to Baltimore City, you know there are nice parts and not so nice parts. A heavy financial interest is taken in the Baltimore Inner Harbor and other neighborhoods like Federal Hill and Otterbein, but what of the rest of the city. Only a few blocks away from the Inner Harbor you’ll find burnt out town houses, an abundance of litter, and those affected by the heroine epidemic. East and West Baltimore, the areas sandwiching the economic centers of Baltimore, are home to the highest murder rate per capita in the United States.

HBO’s “The Wire” does a good job of depicting the gritty side of America’s cities. Often times, fictional TV doesn’t focus on crime or injustice in America, going for a more upbeat and cheerier to city living. I like “The Wire” as its filmed in the city; it feels real. I’ve driven on Eastern Ave, played sports in the city, I drive past the prison that displays a big sign “drop the gun or pick a room” on 83 on my way in and out of downtown Baltimore. By filming “The Wire” in the actual places it wants to represent, much stronger feelings are evoked. When I see Barksdale or McNulty, I see someone native to the city, acting as a real person would. I credit this to the realness of the writing and the director’s immersion of the characters into Baltimore life. This works very well for me, as it helps viewers understand the dark underbelly of major American cities, where crime in constant and police presence only plugs some holes. That there is no real solution and the war between law and unlawful is and always will be ongoing.

Like “To Kill a Mockingbird” details justice in the rural south during the 1960’s, “The Wire” similarly throws viewers into a new environment where a lot is working against the main characters. In “To Kill a Mockingbird” race and society are constantly undermining Atticus and Tom Robinson’s case and justice slips away from those who deserve it. Not everyone can relate to those living in the America’s cities. In “The Wire” bureaucracy and politics slows the police in trying to apprehend Avon Barksdale while Barksdale’s soldiers are fighting against their own adversaries while trying to fulfill their tasks. “The Wire” is ambiguous with its definitions of “law and “justice” like many of our other readings. There is no real prevailing moment

Surely there would be some improvement in the city’s conditions since “The Wire” aired in the early 2000’s. One would hope so, however, Baltimore is still in a sense hopeless. Its last three elected mayors have been removed from office for some sort or crime. Its most recent mayor, Catherine Pugh, was sentenced to three years in jail for tax fraud. Six of her properties were raided by the FBI and the IRS conducted an audit where fraudulent dealings were found. Baltimore City’s helplessness is rooted in its core and its elected officials not only procrastinate on reviving the city but are dealing in their own criminal enterprises. Sheila Dixon, who stepped down from mayoral office amidst a embezzlement and felony theft scandal, is currently the frontrunner for the upcoming mayoral election. The cycle continues.

I like “The Wire” for its darkness. There is no real sense of optimism, no real sense of progress, and no real sense of victory. Everything comes at a cost and there are no real happy endings. The mood is dark. Much like “Country of my Skull”, the mood is eerily depressing, and each story or arch emits a certain darkness. In “country of my Skull”, personal witness accounts are at the forefront of the book and readers are treated to the authors reaction. This is similar to the perspective of the Baltimore police; when viewers follow their stories, they see murder and horrible drug crimes and witness the reactions of public servants. McNulty and the rest of his unity work out of a dank dark basement using outdated equipment and receive no real funding. They’re trying to scrape what they can together to get their job done. DeAngelo Barksdale and his crew have to deal with addicts and gangsters while trying to protect their only source of income from rivals. They’re kids fighting to keep themselves fed and their families with a source of income. “The Wire” highlights how politics slows down public sector life. Approval from a superior or permission from a judge can take too long and a police target moves on and an opportunity is missed. How life in Baltimore City is devoid of any progress, how the burnt out and abandoned buildings in West Baltimore filmed in 2002 still stand today. “The Wire” is distinctly different than any literature our class has read thus far, yet the underlying themes of “law” and “justice” are at the forefront of the show. “The Wire” has a modern take on law (or lack of) in America, where crime is rampant, and the police are ineffective. There are characters we fall in love with on both sides of the law, characters we sympathize with but at the end of the day the depravity of Baltimore City eats at every one of them and there is no resolution and no happy endings.

Failings Of The Justice System

After watching Destin Cretton’s film, Just Mercy, many Americans will say that even though this case was from the late 80s, our country still faces many of the same issues. As a viewer, it was hard to swallow many times throughout the movie. From irresponsible policing to coerced confessions, Walter McMillian’s case had it all. It is utterly tragic that a person such as Mr. McMillian had to endure what he did, but there are cases out there, as we find out, that have it just as bad.

One theme of the film is justifying right from wrong. This involves many characters involving Darnell Houston, Ralph Myers, and Tommy Chapman. All three of these men were in difficult positions in their lives, especially for Ralph Myers who was on the brink of reaching death row. Beginning with Ralph Myers, he ended up as the state’s key witness in the prosecution of Mr. McMillian and the 1986 murder of Ronda Morrison. Already serving a life sentence, the county sheriff had threatened to put Ralph Myers on death row should he not falsly testify against Mr. McMillian. As the viewers find out, the two had never even previously met prior to the case hearing. Unfortunately for many inmates, even today, police coercion is an occurrence. Now don’t get me wrong, not every officer or member of law enforcement is involved in this, but there have been situations where this has been the case (Central Park Five, Richard Jewell). After meeting with Mr. McMillian’s lawyer, Bryan Stevenson, Myers decides to reappear in court and recant his previous testimony. Moving on to Tommy Chapman, the District Attorney, the initial prosecution of Walter McMillian was before his time in office. It was for Mr. Chapman though to work on the case after Mr. Stevenson was able to get a retrial. As a viewer, you can see that initially, Mr. Chapman had no interest in looking over Mr. McMillian’s case given the “amount of hurt” he had caused Monroe County. It is not until later on when Mr. Chapman agrees to team up with Mr. Stevenson and join in on the motion to drop all the charges against Walter McMillan. This is indeed a lot to take in and with that let’s take a step back. Mr. Chapman, District Attorney in a deep south state is left to deal with the murder of a young white woman who’s case had been already closed via a jury, is now faced with a bright, young Harvard lawyer presenting him facts he simply can not overlook. As he states various times throughout the film, it is his job to do what is best in the interest of the people in his county. Unfortunately, there are those in the community who do not care to even listen to the evidence and just look at the fact that Mr. McMillian is an African-American male who “looks like he could commit the crime.”On the other hand, Mr. Chapman has the prospect of doing the correct thing. As the film moves on, you see that Mr. Chapman begins to comprehend that Mr. McMillian is no criminal after all. Luckily for Mr. Stevenson, Mr. McMillian, and his family, Chapman comes to his sense and agrees to drop all charges. So while Mr. McMillian ends up with the justice he deserves, many other out there in the system do not. Just look at Anthony Ray Hinton who was wrongly convicted and was on Alabama death row for over 30 years. Again, thank to Mr. Stevenson.

This case can be tied To Kill A Mockingbird. Not only are both based out of Monroe County, Alabama, but both are dealing with similar instances of injustice. On both accounts, the failings of the justice system are depicted, and the ways in which these failings disproportionately affect the lives of African-American men are detailed. Despite the decades of time difference in the stories’ settings, a similar theme prevails: institutionalized racism across the criminal justice system. The immense effort necessary to clear Mr.McMillian’s name is evidence of the residual racial prejudices that continue to exist, even in the decades following the Jim-Crow era. This prejudice is experienced not only by the African-American community, but also by those attempting to clear the names of those wrongly accused of crimes, such as Atticus Finch and Bryan Stevenson. The parallels between the film and the movie are depictive of the inherently racist institutions that still exist in our nation today. In cities across the nation, African-American communities are gentrified into neighborhoods where poverty, and inequitable access to resources run rampant. These communities are the same as those in the movie and novel, which are criminalized simply for the color of their skin, and grossly underrepresented in the judicial and legal system. It is a vicious cycle, in which gentrification leads those without access to legal resources unable to represent themselves, and thus, subject to further inequitable treatment by law enforcement, and the justice system as whole.

American Son – Racial Inequality in the eyes of the Law.

The Film “American Son”, tackles the major themes of racism, injustice and police brutality, by telling the story of an interracial couple, who find themselves stricken with worry, over the fact that their 18-year-old son is missing. The mother, named Ellis Connor, wakes up one night and realizes her son, Jamal never came home, which is unusual behavior for him. She attempts to contact him through his cell phone and he doesn’t answer. She decides to call the police and inevitably heads to the police station, and then calls the child’s father.

Once she arrives at the police station she is met with an officer who is blatantly rude, as well as dismissive of the problem. Refuses to give her any information regarding the case and fails to even try to hide the prejudice’s he has in front of the worried mother. She is suspicious of the officer’s true intentions and assumes that the color of her skin is the underlying factor that is resulting in his obscene behavior. Something that black women in America know all too well. I felt especially drawn to the story of the mother within this film. Portrayed by Kerry Washington, she played the role of a black mother, frustrated by the inability of the world to listen to her words and take them seriously. We still live in a world in which this scenario continues to get played out. Black people, not just women, within the criminal justice system, or when having ANY interaction with law enforcement find themselves, being demeaned and overlooked. Have their truths be turned away and unheard because of the systematic racism that still runs through the veins of this country. In a way, this story relates to Harper Lee’s to kill a Mockingbird. The parallel between the characters of Tom Robinson and Ms. Ellis Connor, is hard to miss. Major themes that have been displayed in both bodies of work include, the presence of inequality at the social and legal stage. No, these characters do not share the same story but their struggles are similar. Both having to fight to have their truths believed by the public. Both experiencing symptoms of the generational trauma against black American’s. Over 50 years apart.

Once the father arrives, the police officer mistakes him for the lead investigator because Jamal’s father is white. Before he realizes he begins to spill out information regarding the case that he purposely, refused to disclose to Jamal’s mother. This is where the film begins to highlight and contrast how the criminal justice system treats white people versus how they treat black people. It becomes clearly apparent that the two parents of Jamal have plenty of disagreements over how their son should be raised and how the world may view their bi-racial child. Mr. Conner associates Jamal’s disappearance to the fact that he has begun to embrace his black roots. By hanging around other black kids, and wearing cornrows, Mr. Connor thinks that “Ghetto hair and hanging with black delinquents is a big risk.” But Mrs. Ellis Connor describes their son Jamal’s behavior as attempting to figure out who he is, and making sense of being surrounded constantly by white people. She describes an incident in which Jamal explains to her that he feels as if he is the “face of the race.” The people around him look to him as the only black boy in the room. The poster child for all of their questions, and all of their glares. People who do not share the same lineage, traits or struggles. Something that I often times face, being a black woman at a PWI. Whenever the discussion is brought to race, I have to look around and see that everyone is already staring at me. For anyone, this can be especially hard. It makes you feel as if you are an outsider, it makes you feel like, the world looks at you as this object, and not a person with feelings. Jamal’s father however, does not understand this concept and decides that this is just some “Victimhood Psychobabble”, projected at him by his mother Mrs. Ellis Connor. He does not see his son as a black male, he does everything in his power to not see the color of his son’s skin. But he fails to realize, that not seeing Jamal’s color of skin, is to not see Jamal for who he is, a black male.

Unfortunately for Mr. and Mrs. Connor, their worst fears were realized when the true investigator of the case, comes and explains that Jamal was involved in a traffic stop gone wrong. He had been with two other black males, who both had warrants out for their arrest. When asked to get out of the car and wait in the rain, Jamal made one critical false move. His movement away from the car caused the officer to shoot Jamal in the head, instantly killing him. This story is the ending that many black Americans will face and have faced in this country, and even the world. It is a story that truly depicts the actions of law enforcement, as well as the fears of the parents of those who have begun to be entangled within the criminal justice system.

“Sweat” and a Masculinity Complex

The phrase “boys will be boys” is a time-old phrase used to counteract the actions of men. This phrase comes from a culture where it is deemed normal for a man to be unfaithful, rough, rude, among many other unlikeable traits. In Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat,” this toxic masculinity was on full display through Delia’s husband Sykes and his actions through his cheating and abuse of her. Only two months after they first got married, he began to abuse her and taunt her playing off of her fear of snakes. Him purposely using her fear of snakes as a way to taunt her or control her is a profound form of abuse. This along with the fact he was harsh with her and her choice of work, and was pursuing another woman on the side, Delia made the decision to not be with him anymore and he went to stay with the other woman he was seeing, Bertha. Throughout the story it was evident that he cared more about Bertha, yet he chose to stay with Delia. This is because he knew he had a level of control over her and didn’t want to lose it. Being unemployed, it was like making her miserable and keeping her under his control was like a daily occupation. It is in this masculinity complex, especially for the African American male, to be hard and to have control over his house.

Also within the works of the masculinity complex, is the idea of like a bro-code if you will . This idea is shown through the silence of the other men when Sykes came into the shop with Bertha. Because of town gossip they all knew that Sykes was unfaithful to Delia, and even spoke about how messed up it is, but once he walked into the shop with Bertha, they all grew silent. Their silence isn’t a sign of minding their business because they sit around together and gossip. It is a sign of their conformity to what he is doing, and accepting the fact that this is the way he, and other men like him are, yet they do nothing about it. Sykes and his womanizing ways are looked at as just another form of masculinity by his peers. This behavior should not be made normal for men, yet for years it has been and probably will continue to be.

Unbelievable

Men and the General Desensitization to Sexual Assault

To say I was surprised by the short series “Unbelievable,” would be an understatement. This show had revealed the ins and outs of working a rape case from the police side as well as the victim’s. Some of it was hard to watch, and hard to handle, but other parts of it were powerful and brave, and revelaed the amount of strength secxual assault victims have, and will have to have for the rest of their lives. But the key thing I noticed in this show and wanted to talk about is the correlation between men, in the police force as well as regular people, and their treatment and view of sexual assault cases.

At the beginning of the show, a young girl Marie, had just become a victim of sexual assault. She rightfully called the police right after, and the investigation process began immediately. I counted that she had to recall what happened and make her statement six times to the male detectives working her case. It became apparent that every time she told the story again, they believed it less and less; to the point where they coerced her into lying about it and saying the assault didn’t happen all together. This young girl, who just had a tragedy happen to her, is rushed into recalling as many details as possible from something so scarring and probable to being blocked out of her psyche. Being physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted, it would be easy to see just how some details get left out or changed in each recalling of the assault, yet the detectives were so quick to pick apart her story and see some of the inconsistencies without considering why that might be, other than she is lying. Their disbelief of the victim’s story and their quickness to say she is lying instead of seeing her inconsistencies for what they were, a response to trauma, shows that there is a level of desensitization to sexual assault and the stories of the victims.

After the first episode, the show transitions between Marie’s story and the story of two female detectives cracking down on the serial rapist who also happens to be the rapist that attacked Marie. In pursuit of the serial rapist, they investigate past cases of sexual assault, and speak to those victims for details they might not have remembered from when it first happened. One of the women they went back to talk to was visibly hostile towards the detectives because nothing had come out of her case which was filed an entire year before. It was when she worked with the female detectives that new evidence of a large knife, which he threatened her with during the assault, was discovered in her garden. Why was it that nothing had come out of this woman’s case, yet there was undiscovered evidence lying around in her front yard? There was an obvious lack of effort from the detective on this case, because like the detectives who worked on Marie’s case, the detective didn’t believe what happened to her because of her questionable lifestyle. The detective on this case was a man. The similarities between the male detectives and their judgements and decisions to not believe the female sexual assault victim is uncannily similar. It is apparent that these detectives have a preceding thought complex when it comes to sexaul assault cases and the trustworthiness of the victims. Now, there sadly is a level of validity to their suspicions and thought complexes because of the unfortunate cases where women purposely lie about being sexually assaulted, for whatever reason it might be. One moment in the show that kind of shocked me, before I realized there was a hint of truth in it was when the female detectives brought in a male suspect for questioning and he said to them, “It happens all the time now. Girls making these claims. It’s a thing. There’s a status to being a victim.” While yes, this sadly can be a fact, it should be viewed and categorized as what it is, a rarity, rather than the normal. It is the women who have truly experienced rape or any form of sexual assualt that suffere from the fake claims made. When people believe that there are more and more women faking something so horrible happening to them, it causes people to be less sensitive to the topic and to those who truly suffer from it.

Although I made the correlation to men being desensitized from rape crimes, there is a general numbing to sexaul assault crimes because they happen so oftern. The fact that there is a level of normalcy to this crime is shameful. It was said in the show by the FBI detective, that rape cases are not given the same time and energy as other casses, which is sad. A crime is a crime, and the police officers and detectives who put on their badge and uniform everyday, living out the oath they made, promising to protect people and fight for justice, should apply to all crimes. Law enforcement agencies are predominately run by men, and can be a factor as to why sexual assault cases aren’t given the time and attention they deserve. I think this show was insightful, powerful, and displayed a true depiction of how impactful sexaul assault can be in a person’s life, victim or authority working the case. I know for me personally, this has truly heightened my awareness of the depth of the struggles assault victims face, and I can only hope it has done the same for viewers everywhere to take any this desestimacion that has occured in our society.

Philadelphia Review

I decided to watch the movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. I watched this movie a couple years ago and forgot how powerful and emotional the message was. Without a doubt I knew this was something that I had to write about. I went back and watched the movie and noticed some things that I didn’t catch the first time I watched it. I decided to elaborate and talk about the emotional factors of this movie and what I gained from it.

I did research on the movie and found that this was the first movie to fully depict the AIDS crisis. In this movie they were able to take on misconceptions and injustices that took place during the AIDS epidemic. The main character of the movie, Andy (Tom Hanks) is a successful lawyer who everyone in his office loves and a Gay man living with AIDS. One day he is fired over a mishap that seemed to be planned, but Andy realizes that it wasn’t the mishap that had him fired, but the lesions on his forehead which is one of the outward signs of AIDS. At first Andy searches for a lawyer, all 10 lawyers he sees refuse to take his case. One of the most pivotal scenes for me was seeing his face on the crowded street. You can see the sadness and frustration which makes the audience feel for Andy at this moment. Andy then finally chooses Joe (Denzel Washington). At first Joe declines, but then realizes that they may have something in common. Whether its race, gender, or sexuality, no one deserves to be discriminated against.

This movie took the most unmentionable and taboo subjects at that time and brought them to light to Hollywood and audiences everywhere. As controversial as it was, this movie was able to move a lot of people and I think it was able to help people think differently as well. What moved me most about this movie was that as Andy’s health was declining, he still pursued his law firm to have them answer for their unethical role in his termination. While I may not be able to relate to this movie, I started to think about the injustices that I or someone else may face; as an African American or a woman in the legal system. I may be faced with things others may not understand, but learning to be open and accepting to people who have different stories than us, can change the way we look at things. Seeing the way Joe wasn’t accepting at first, but came to terms with Andy was really what made this a great movie. While Joe’s lifestyle may have been different, he was able to accept Andy’s lifestyle.

From a cinematic perspective I think the close-ups of Andy’s face and the silence placed at different parts of the movie was able to make the audience somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even emotional. This movie was able to open the doors for other controversial movies and topics as well as bring light to the LGBT community. The movie also shows a lot of details of the AIDS epidemic and doesn’t let up. The audience is able to see the intimate details of what it’s like to live with disease which makes this even more of a cinematic masterpiece in my opinion. We also get to see things from Joe’s perspective outside of the courtroom and are able to learn that his life is very dimensional. One of the things I loved most about this movie was that I was also able to see the character’s life outside of the courtroom. We get to see Joe at first have a hatred for the Gay community, but later find acceptance for Andy and the community; as well as Andy’s life as a Gay man living with AIDS.

In conclusion, what I gained from this film is that everyone is deserving of acceptance and to fight for whatever you may believe in. I think this movie did an amazing job of shining light on the AIDS epidemic and prejudice in general. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who is looking for a legal drama as well as a tearjerker. I hope everyone is able to take away something from this movie the way I did.

The Unique Manifestation of Mental Illness portrayed in the Wire

Season Two of HBO’s critically acclaimed drama series The Wire follows a group of stevedores working on the docks of the Baltimore harbor and the police who’s goal is to ultimately take them down. Within this crime ridden family, two main players in the international smuggling rings are Frank Sobotka and his troubled son, Ziggy Sobotka. In the second to last episode, the police eventually raided the union offices of the dockworkers, lead by Frank Sobotka, and arrest these criminals. Of these criminals are Frank’s aforementioned son Ziggy, and his nephew Nick. After Frank is released from jail, he goes to see Ziggy in prison to talk with him about their future steps, including the matter of bail, which is said to be “tricky”. It is in this scene that a clear psychological strain has been placed upon Ziggy, as if these years of being a criminal have finally broke his conscience. It is in this scene in which he confronts and begs to his father, he confronts him over this life of crime he was essentially born into and he begs his father for anything, just any sliver of hope. Perhaps the most poignant line in this scene is when Ziggy looks at his father, and for the first time is completely honest with not only his father, but also himself: “I got tired I got tired of being the punchline of every joke”. This line sums up his entire psychological state at that moment, a state of which he is simply given up all hope. At this point Ziggy has become all but a passive passenger in his own life.

By boiling down his entire essence into simply seeing himself as nothing more of the constant punchline, Ziggy has unknowingly opened the Pandora’s box of why he is like this. Immediate after hearing this confession of hopelessness from Ziggy, Frank says, “if you had problems you coulda [sic] just came to me”, to which Ziggy replies, “You wouldn’t of heard”, thus showing that perhaps Ziggy was not so secretive of his active psychological unbalance, and rather it falls upon the father to simply be more attentive. This shows that no matter how old a child ages, the constant need for parental guidance will be ever present. Ziggy follows up that, with a blatant accusation of over neglect, saying “You were always too busy drudging up the canal”, once again showing that a parents role in a child’s life has a direct consequence on that child’s psyche. For Ziggy to say this, it now places the blame for his hopelessness directly upon Frank’s shoulders, at least in Ziggy’s eyes.

A second accusation is levied upon Frank Sobotka by his child, this time encompassing the lies being force fed to Ziggy his entire life: “I always used to think you were working all that time”. This line truly sums up the entire reason for Ziggy to be without hope, his one person who he had been dependent on his entire life, his father, his absolute role model, built a relationship with his child based solely on lies. Not only did he lie to his child, once he determined his child to be of age, then incorporated him into the life of crime, most likely without ever a second thought to the wishes of Ziggy.

Ziggy did not lose hope, it was stolen from him before he ever realized.

11 Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men is a film about twelve men sitting at a table. They are on jury duty in a murder case, in which an eighteen year old boy allegedly killed his father. After hearing the trial, the jury is moved into a small room to discuss their verdict. The fan in the corner does not turn on so the room is hot, and when they open the windows, one man mentions that it is supposed to be the hottest day of the year. Some of the men have tickets for a baseball game starting later that night and are anxious to get voting over with. My favorite part of the movie is that through the whole film, no names are given until the very last scene. It enhances the movie because it reflects a real jury. With a name comes an association and in a jury, it is important that the jurors keep that emotional distance. The jury’s decision has to be unanimous either guilty or not guilty in order to move through with the prosecution or not. The result of the first vote they take is 11-1 guilty. This sends everyone into a fury. When the rest of the men asked the single man why he voted not guilty, he said he just wasn’t sure. He brings up that the only piece of evidence is the murder weapon that is a “rare” pocket knife that had no finger prints. The boy on trial admitted to owning the knife but did not use it to kill his father. The man talking pulls out the same knife placing it next to the murder weapon saying he bought it at a pawn shop near the boys house. He suggests the boy’s knife might have gotten lost and someone used a similar one to kill his father. While others deny it, he claims that it is possible. One of the men says “It may be possible but it’s not probable.” The man believes that they can’t send this boy to the death sentence if there is probable doubt. Before they know it the vote is 8-4 guilty.

The men in favor of ‘not guilty’ run through each piece of suspicion and disprove it. There are two witnesses on the case, a lady who saw the murder from across the street, and a man who lived downstairs. The witness who lived downstairs said it took him 15 seconds from hearing the thud of the dead victim, to opening his door and seeing the boy run down the stairs. However, the oldest man on the jury relates to the old man and points out that he is an old man with a limp. He says it would have taken him more than 15 seconds to get to the door so the jury is able to disprove the fact that he saw the boy and claim that he assumed he heard the boy coming down the stairs. During the next vote, it’s 6-6. Then it becomes 9-3 not guilty.

The woman across the street said that when she rolled over in her bed in the middle of the night, she saw the murder through a passing train. The jurors point out that she wears glasses and it’s unlikely that she put her glasses on in that moment. Therefore, her eyesight is questionable. She may have witnessed a murder but it is likely that it was a blur and she did not identify the boy. The men who want to prosecute the boy say that because she is a witness, her statement has to be true. From the beginning of the film, the same men claim that they can’t believe the suspect’s story because he’s “one of them.” The one man who has been fighting for the boy all along asks, “Why do you believe her story but not his? She’s one of them too isn’t she?” This is when it clicked for me what “them” meant. They don’t explicitly say this in the movie, but based on the fact that it was produced in 1957, we can confidently assume that the suspect is a man of color and when they refer to “them” in the movie they are talking about people of color. This is the implicit reason behind many of the men’s original vote to convict the boy. This reveals they actually dont care about the witness they just want to prosecute him. The first man who keeps pushing for “not guilty,” calls the others out, saying “Prejudice always skews the truth.” He reminds me a lot of Atticus in the way that he is fighting for this man that everyone else looks down on by logically disproving the evidence and simply having sympathy. And similar to To Kill A Mockingbird, no matter what facts were disproved, some men still found him guilty because of his skin color.

The next vote 11-1 not guilty. Throughout the film there is a man who is strongly committed to his guilty vote. When the rest of the men asked him why he still voted guilty, he said he didn’t know and started crying. Then he changes his vote “not guilty.” As he continues to sob, everyone else leaves. The first man who voted “not guilty” stays behind and grabs the crying man’s jacket for him (a very Atticus move). Then the movie is over. Probably the most exciting part of the movie is in the last scene when the first two men to vote ‘not guilty’ introduce themselves. Their names are Davis and Mccardle.

My thoughts on the podcast, “Serial”

***spoilers for “Serial” below****

As a criminal justice major and aspiring criminal defense attorney, I am obsessed with investigative podcasts. I got into them about 2 years ago, when I listened to Payne Lindsey’s “Up and Vanished” for the first time. Payne Lindsey, as an amateur podcaster, cracked a cold case murder by investigating and telling the story in his podcast’s first season. It was the coolest, most interesting thing and I was 100% hooked on podcasts from there on out. Now, I know I’m rambling a little bit, but basically what I am trying to get at is the decision as to what option I should pick for the purpose of this assignment was a no brainer for me – it had to be the podcast “Serial.”

This first season of “Serial,” hosted by Sarah Koenig, told the story of a murder that happened in Baltimore in 1999. An 18 year old girl named Hae went missing after school one day, and a few weeks later was found dead in Leakin Park (a forest/park area in Baltimore, Maryland). Her cause of death was manual strangulation. Investigators started looking at potential suspects and different people in her life. Eventually they decided to move forward with charging Hae’s ex boyfriend, Adnan, with her murder. He was convicted and is currently serving a life sentence in prison. However, the host of this podcast believes that there may be more to the story, and maybe Adnan is innocent. This podcast explores different aspects of the story, and tries to understand what really happened, and who is truly responsible for Hae‘s death.

Sarah Koenig unpacks a lot of the evidence (or lack thereof) that the state was basing their case on throughout the podcast. One aspect that almost all of the state’s case was dependent on was a boy named Jay, who was friends with Adnan. He told the police that Adnan planned, killed and disposed of Hae’s body, and that he confided in Jay with all of this information. He even gave police Adnan’s exact timeline. However, there is a potential witness who saw and spoke with Adnan during the time frame that Jay claims he was killing and burying Hae. This alibi, however, was never explored or introduced by Adnan’s defense attorney at trial. What baffles me is that his defense attorney didn’t even reach out to the witness once. Later, to not much surprise, Adnan’s defense attorney was disbarred for a different case for doing an insufficient job.

One aspect of this whole case that scares me the most is the fact that it is so easy to blame someone for a crime. Although there were statements from Jay that makes it seem like Adnan did it, there was really no other concrete evidence that proved that he killed her. A quote that stuck out at me in the podcast was when Adnan was being interviewed by the host from prison, and asked “what was it about me that would allow someone to even entertain the possibility that I could do this?” (episode 6). This idea made me really question everything I know about the legal system, sometimes people are convicted without any evidence directly linking them to the crime. There were no fingerprints or DNA matching Adnan’s at the crime scene, he was convicted based on the fact that he was Hae’s ex-boyfriend, and statements that Jay gave to the police. Sarah Koenig raised many questions throughout the podcast, that maybe Jay was lying and was instead protecting someone else for the crime and framing Adnan. What scares me is you can be living a normal life, and then one day be at the forefront of a murder case (hopefully that happens to none of us). I know that out of any suspects or people looked into, Adnan looked the most guilty for the crime. But does that mean he did it?

On the flip side, it’s also just as scary to think that someone as normal and convincing as Adnan could’ve actually done it. He was a normal high school student: running track, homecoming King, studying and doing well in school, having a lot of friends, etc. Listening to his interviews throughout this podcast is very convincing that he did not kill Hae. I kept thinking, this guy? There’s just no way. But, what’s scary is the thought that Adnan, someone who reminds me of every other high school boy I went to school with, could’ve actually done it. Don, Hae’s boyfriend at the time of her death, even said that Adnan “was someone that I would’ve hung out with if I knew him in school” (episode 12).

Aspects within this podcast reminded of some of the things we’ve discussed in class. In many of the works we have read for class, there were themes of believability, innocence and guilt within them. Especially in texts that discuss the court system and how they handle different crimes. This podcast told the story, not of a murder, but of a teenage boy who went to prison for it, and whether he is innocent or guilty. Sadly, the ending of this podcast wasn’t like Payne Lindsey’s “Up and Vanished” where he cracked the case. Adnan was later granted a retrial but the same conclusion came from it. He is still in jail for Hae’s murder, and I can’t help but feel unsettled with that ending.

The Harms of Ignoring Intersectionality.

In Kimberlié Crenshaw’s Mapping the Margins, she explores the flaws inherent in the systems of modern feminism and antiracist politics and how they often fail to recognize the unique areas in which they intersect. That is because these movements are based on the experiences of black men and middle-class white women which excludes large swathes of lower-class women of color and their struggles. She applauds the work that these movements have accomplished while also critiquing the exclusion of these marginalized women from the overall narrative by making it an either/or scenario for many of them. Crenshaw stresses the necessity of recognizing those who experience both racism and sexism and what can be changed to address those unique needs.

Crenshaw illustrates that by ignoring the intersection between the movements they ultimately end up hurting one another. She does this through her many examples of domestic violence and rape. In the instance of the latina woman who could not find shelter from her abusive husband Crenshaw shows the harms caused by the lack of preparedness or willingness of these women’s shelters to accept someone that they deemed outside of their norms for victims. Another instance of the banality of the movements is the refusal of the LAPD and other antiracist advocacy groups to release the domestic violence statistics for the very real fear that they would be used to demonize the people they represent.She argues that because of these failure of feminism to recognize race and the antiracist movements to address the oppression of the patriarchy, many women of color are left unspoken for when it comes to the issues that concern them the most.

Crenshaw frames all of her examples through not only a societal view but also a political and a cultural one as well, and in all scenarios, the voices of women of color are eclipsed by those who are either white or male. By ignoring the areas in which movements intersect those fighting for them are inadvertently harming their own causes and those of others fighting for representation, and by flooding conversations concerning race and gender with a narrow idea of what each means it creates a destructive dichotomy for those caught in the crossfire.