Great article. I am a fan of both "Making a Murderer" and "Serial." I specifically agree with your point about Avery's statement regarding the truth "always" coming out. As I enter into the spring semester of my second year of law school, I have discovered that, unfortunately for the innocent, the truth does not always come out. Sometimes the truth is obscured by procedural rules. Sometimes the truth is suppressed by rules of evidence or inadequate/absent witnesses. Sometimes the truth is left out by police officers and investigators or overlooked by prosecutors. At least we can hope for a better justice system. But my intuition, mixed with a little logic and study of the law, tells me obtaining a better justice system is a slow process.
9
I've watched the series. It reinforces my opinion that to often justice is measured in conviction rates regardless of whether fair, balanced, and objective evaluation of the evidence presented is accomplished. The pressure to deliver convictions can and does lead to fair trials not always occurring. Law enforcement personnel are human too, and just like all humans not all are competent, some are corrupt and some have an abnormally heightened sense of righteousness that can lead them to assume they are right and justified in their thoughts and actions when those thoughts and actions may be wrong or prejudicial. The system should provide some semblance of protection against the weaknesses listed above but that is near impossible given that the Media in its zealousness to deliver a story can itself be the source of prejudice or even worse be manipulated into creating a prejudicial environment. We the public are also to blame with many of us assuming authority figures must have it right or worse yet we believe what we see and hear in entertainment vehichles such as "crime story" TV, movies or fiction books.
We as a society need to do the best job we can to insure fairness before concluding someone is guilty of a crime. Even then we'll get it wrong sometimes but at least the emphasis will be in the right place.
We as a society need to do the best job we can to insure fairness before concluding someone is guilty of a crime. Even then we'll get it wrong sometimes but at least the emphasis will be in the right place.
1
What is striking about this case is not how unusual it is, but how typical it is. The police interrogations of the nephew are not even remotely an attempt to gather information or get at the truth. Rather, the detectives try to put words in the young nephews mouth regardless of whether it appears that he is actually being truthful. This becomes a game where the interrogators hold all the cards and they attempt to obtain a "confession" regardless of whether that confession has any relationship to the truth. But don't think that this only happens to people like the nephew of limited intelligence. Study after study show that even adults of average intelligence sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit after long coercive interrogations. While the police think they are acting in good faith, they are actually tainting the process by using interrogations to elicit confessions, even where the person being interrogated is innocent. Perhaps we should require that, for serious crimes, no interrogations be permitted unless an attorney for the accused is present.
7
So "justice" is equivalent to false narratives? Suddenly everything is coming into focus. It certainly applies to social justice.
2
Having watched the series, I was reminded of the O.J. Simpson trial. I believe evidence was planted by police in both cases. The difference was money.
I'm sure O.J. was guilty anyway, but that is no excuse to plant evidence. I suspect Steve is guilty in this case also, but I'm pretty sure that Brendan is not guilty.
This was a juvenile! The police framed a juvenile for murder! I'm sure they believed he was guilty, but that is no excuse for coercing a confession. This was horrible behavior by the police and the DA.
Prosecutors are almost always motivated by politics. Police also. I think the eventual solution to this is that every person will have a tiny body cam and microphone that streams to an online vault to be opened only with permission of the person or their family.
I shutter to think how many innocent people are in jail and how many guilty people go free. It is even worse to realize that many innocent people have been killed by the states. The death penalty needs to be eliminated nation wide. Our authorities don't have the credibility to have the death penalty at their disposal.
I'm sure O.J. was guilty anyway, but that is no excuse to plant evidence. I suspect Steve is guilty in this case also, but I'm pretty sure that Brendan is not guilty.
This was a juvenile! The police framed a juvenile for murder! I'm sure they believed he was guilty, but that is no excuse for coercing a confession. This was horrible behavior by the police and the DA.
Prosecutors are almost always motivated by politics. Police also. I think the eventual solution to this is that every person will have a tiny body cam and microphone that streams to an online vault to be opened only with permission of the person or their family.
I shutter to think how many innocent people are in jail and how many guilty people go free. It is even worse to realize that many innocent people have been killed by the states. The death penalty needs to be eliminated nation wide. Our authorities don't have the credibility to have the death penalty at their disposal.
2
I dare any human I know to watch that documentary and not emerge infuriated.....
12
The United States criminal justice system needs, in addition to what Ms. Griffin suggests, is more support for public criminal defense. What is in woeful condition is the state-funded criminal defense system, not the state-funded criminal defenders themselves. The frame through which public defenders are viewed through today is disgraceful. A number of the brightest, highest-achieving of my law school classmates went on to be public defenders; their representation rivals most private-bar defense attorneys. Their passion for representing the indigent is laudable. The best and brightest lawyers will also falter when they are overburdened by an unmanageable case load. We need more incentives for bright, motivated young lawyers to go into public defense to spread the burden more equally.
19
We need more than that rules that would hold prosecutors accountable for their behavior. There are many in Texas and other states with high false conviction rates who did so knowing they were trying an innocent and still defend the conviction because they convinced a jury it was good! Their minds are so warped they dissociate reality that far and lay the blame for their actions on the jury.
5
> The prosecutor in Mr. Avery’s trial argued in his closing statement that “reasonable doubts are for innocent people.”
The prosecution also said "innocent people do not make confessions," regarding Brandon Dassie. As officers of the court, they are either inept or cynical when they say this.
Innocent adults of nominal intelligence will confess to almost any crime, given the ability and assets of his interrogator. Getting a teenager with demonstrable learning disabilities to confess is a very simple task. Especially when his own defense attorney was atrociously aiding the prosecution, by allowing the prosecution unlimited access to his client, without counsel or parents.
I do not know if Avery is innocent of his crime, but I do know that there is absolutely no evidence of Brandon Dassie's complicity. His confession is a complete and obvious fabrication, manipulated and created by his talented and patient interrogators. Dassie is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to 40 years.
The prosecution also said "innocent people do not make confessions," regarding Brandon Dassie. As officers of the court, they are either inept or cynical when they say this.
Innocent adults of nominal intelligence will confess to almost any crime, given the ability and assets of his interrogator. Getting a teenager with demonstrable learning disabilities to confess is a very simple task. Especially when his own defense attorney was atrociously aiding the prosecution, by allowing the prosecution unlimited access to his client, without counsel or parents.
I do not know if Avery is innocent of his crime, but I do know that there is absolutely no evidence of Brandon Dassie's complicity. His confession is a complete and obvious fabrication, manipulated and created by his talented and patient interrogators. Dassie is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to 40 years.
6
Conglomeration of media has fettered our news and threatens us with its nightly entertainment offerings. Cops shows have morphed into an anti-terrorist scree, where we are subjected to all do the most horrifying things possible by the protagonists. I've done the right thing and turned away, but I haven't lost my ire. What bothers me the most is the lack of concern these new conglomerates have for their customers and the affect they are having on our culture. Our TV shows and movies were once one of our biggest exports. I am offended that we now export comic book heroes and thugs who seem to like to torture people. These nightmares are do not represent the ideal of America the beautiful. Let's break up these monopolies. We need to stop letting the studios own the theaters and the networks should never produce the shows they air. They have proven to be way too irresponsible for the task. These practices represent the worst kind of conflict of interest possible and the audience has responded by killing off mass media and now most of us are cutting off our cable link.
1
I have not viewed these dramas nor am I planning to.
So, my eyeballs will not be eyeballs for marketing unto.
I was taught in my journey through life that what one gets in court is not justice but, a verdict.
I do believe that having good counsel is important.
So, my eyeballs will not be eyeballs for marketing unto.
I was taught in my journey through life that what one gets in court is not justice but, a verdict.
I do believe that having good counsel is important.
2
I am a big proponent that all interrogations should have a competent lawyer. The person does not choose whether he/she wants one but one is assigned.
3
Avery is lucky that I'm not helping to decide his fate. I'm sure I wouldn't make it past voir dire. I have no reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the murder he allegedly committed after he was released from prison. There are way too many gullible people who can be convinced of anything by a well-done advocacy film. I have seen way too many people misread the standard for conviction as "beyond any doubt" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I hope I never am in the position of having my guilt or innocence decided by a jury of my "peers".
3
Good to see the real world creep in. "Closure" is for doors.
2
The point of "Making a Murderer," "Serial," and dozens of Frontline documentaries of similar themes, is that when a handful of individuals (incompetent defense attorneys, police who shoot first, zealous prosecutors eager to chalk up another conviction, experts who can convince uncritical jurors that the scientific evidence proves this or that, etc.) can put people behind bars without a fair trial, whether or not they are innocent or guilty, then the criminal justice system in this country is fatally flawed.
For me, the most egregious miscarriage of justice was when Brendan Dassey, age 15, clearly scared, confused, and willing to change his story to please his interrogators, was questioned by policemen and investigators multiple times about his supposed involvement in a murder without a guardian or lawyer being present. The system should not allow something like that to happen. Yet it does.
For me, the most egregious miscarriage of justice was when Brendan Dassey, age 15, clearly scared, confused, and willing to change his story to please his interrogators, was questioned by policemen and investigators multiple times about his supposed involvement in a murder without a guardian or lawyer being present. The system should not allow something like that to happen. Yet it does.
10
Until you have had the misfortune of sitting in a defendant's chair for any number of the thousands of law you have likely already violated and for whatever fortunate reason not been caught/aware/cared to know, then I think you need to simply spend a day in one's city and one's county courthouse. Few if many cases even make it to trial. Much adjudication is being decided in the rooms adjacent. When a trial is forced upon the lowly weary officers of the court, that decision was made that you must of been guilty of something or why would you be sitting there. How many are bringing up Avery's past "record" of cat killing? His odd sexual preferences or discussions? Was that what he was being tried for. The system is set up to take the low hanging fruit and once you walk or are escorted in you are in it to lose. Watching one's life, one's civil rights, one's dignity being taken from you in the same manner one is accused of robbing an individual is an irony not lost. The way one is accused of murder, theft or fraud by the very individuals who again seemingly have no problem on their end with that regard is quite telling. Go to a Court, see one of the Judges and Prosecutor's you elected. Look at Jury and listen to the bizarre antics that transpire in a court. It is not edited or revised it is real and it is at time utterly horrific. You are all victims once you enter and you will never be the same once you leave - victim or accused.
3
There is one basic and crucial factor that makes justice fundamentally unfair. And that is that justice is decided based not on an objective presentation of the facts, but on adversarial arguments. In many cases where innocent people are found guilty the reason is simply because the defendants lawyer failed to point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's arguments.
The fact is that in so many cases the difference between an innocent person being found guilty or not is based on the skill of their lawyers. This overwhelmingly true when a person is represented by a public defender. And once the trial is over the defendant is barred from ever being able to raise even the most compelling arguments or evidence, if it was available at the time of the trial.
As a result the justice system is not about actual truth, but all about a competition between the prosecution of the defense. And since this is the case truth has nothing to do with being found guilty or not.
The fact is that in so many cases the difference between an innocent person being found guilty or not is based on the skill of their lawyers. This overwhelmingly true when a person is represented by a public defender. And once the trial is over the defendant is barred from ever being able to raise even the most compelling arguments or evidence, if it was available at the time of the trial.
As a result the justice system is not about actual truth, but all about a competition between the prosecution of the defense. And since this is the case truth has nothing to do with being found guilty or not.
4
"Shocked and appalled" are apt but woefully misapplied by this author. they more clearly apply to the slanted portrayal of the story and Dean Stang's relentless pursuit of fame and fortune---to the expense, as always, of justice.
1
CRIME PAYS Very well. If you're in the media business and are involved with a successful series. But when I get into channel surfing, I am startled at how many programs focus on crime and punishment, ranging from policing, detective work, courtroom trials, legal firms, criminal minds. You name it, you can find it on numerous channels. In fact I'd go so far as to say that crime programs dominate the airwaves. Why? What does this all mean--our need as a society to focus on the dark side of human nature? PBS is a notable exception, though they do have their mystery series--only one though. I think there is something Calvinistic in our preoccupation with crime and punishment--the sense that we're all sinners who are foredestined to end up being punished for sins we can't avoid committing. At best, I think it means that we're viewing the programs to engage in fantasies about feelings, thought and actions that we'd never act on. Whether the dark side touches our lives is another question. The GOP's claims that the war on crime & severe sentencing would improve things has proven to be false, because in order to fill privatized prisons, the legal system was incentivized to prop up their bottom line. I find the idea that private profit from feeding off the crimes of others is disgusting. Not to mention that it undermines the most basic beliefs of a democratic society. Small d. Recently nonviolent criminals have been released with no increase in crime. Time to change.
2
I don't know if Avery is guilty, and I seriously believe Dassey is innocent.
Both should have walked because of reasonable doubt, and both would have walked for that reason if they held higher class status.
Both should have walked because of reasonable doubt, and both would have walked for that reason if they held higher class status.
4
One of the parts of this powerful documentary that resonated with me the most, was the interview with the excused juror. His comments about certain jurors convincing others echoed my experience as a juror on a murder trial. In that case, both victim and defendant were African-American and poor. When we met to decide the case, I watched as one of the jurors- a very self-confident white woman, much better educated than nearly all the other jurors, convinced everyone that the defendant was innocent, and more to the point, she had a class to teach that night, so we should make up our minds quickly. Anyone who understands how groups work, will understand that the jury system, while, in theory an important part of our democracy, does not in fact work.
6
Lisa Kern Griffin has my gratitude for speaking up regarding wrong headed prosecutors and prosecutions in a corrective way. The acknowledging that prosecutorial attitudes in general have been and are doing a disservice to reasonable expectation of fairness or justice is long overdue.
Americans do not understand that our criminal justice system is deeply flawed where even in a petty juvenile situation the police, DA's office, and judge often have no interest what so ever in facts, truth, fairness, or the law. Their only interest is punishment never mind objective reality. Though it is clear the police lie under oath routinely resulting in our courts and jails being overcrowded with people our society has marginalized including juveniles there is still little interest in corrective measures. Just look at the Rikers Island and other social justice stories in this paper over the last year. Stories this strong critic of the Times praises.
Still I have little hope of real reform as the very personalities of a large segment of those attracted to law enforcement are the problem. There are way too many individuals with issues involving authority and power that they feel compelled to misuse for our justice system to find its way to significant reform.
As long as we grant power to those who will beat someone senseless or imprison on meritless evidence just because they can we have a problem.
Americans do not understand that our criminal justice system is deeply flawed where even in a petty juvenile situation the police, DA's office, and judge often have no interest what so ever in facts, truth, fairness, or the law. Their only interest is punishment never mind objective reality. Though it is clear the police lie under oath routinely resulting in our courts and jails being overcrowded with people our society has marginalized including juveniles there is still little interest in corrective measures. Just look at the Rikers Island and other social justice stories in this paper over the last year. Stories this strong critic of the Times praises.
Still I have little hope of real reform as the very personalities of a large segment of those attracted to law enforcement are the problem. There are way too many individuals with issues involving authority and power that they feel compelled to misuse for our justice system to find its way to significant reform.
As long as we grant power to those who will beat someone senseless or imprison on meritless evidence just because they can we have a problem.
5
I really wish all Americans understood US Constitutional Protections and what guilt and innocence mean under the law. Law and Order = great television, but so wrong on the law in many instances, and often wrong dramatizing our guaranteed constitutional protections. We have entire generations of citizens who have no clue what justice really looks like (not that it happens in real life all the time either).
1
Fair Trials Matter.
If police & prosecutors are convinced that O.J. or Adnan or Steven and Brendan are guilty, that does not and must not give them the right to plant evidence, fail to disclose discoverable materials and events, destroy 'rough notes', or otherwise focus on one suspect to the exclusion of all else. It goes from incompetence to malfeasance. (I think O.J. was guilty. But the state did not prove it in the criminal trial.)
As we have seen with shootings of unarmed suspects: one time they may get the benefit of the doubt, twice and it becomes highly suspicious, and after multiple times it shows a pattern.
If such deeds happen, usually the worst that happens to the misbehavers is that they see the suspect freed. Unless Steven sues them and their insurance refuses to cover them. If they succeed, someone innocent may go to jail for life.
If 'the punishment fit the crime", those caught would go to prison for the equivalent length of time, Lt. Lenks. Some level of serious punishment is appropriate for such abuse of power. At the very least we should not have to listen to sermons about how most cops are good (which they certainly are). If this is 'just a few bad apples', then let's put those few in a different barrel, one with bars. Many Americans believe most politicians are crooked. Is it so hard to think that some cops might be too?
If police & prosecutors are convinced that O.J. or Adnan or Steven and Brendan are guilty, that does not and must not give them the right to plant evidence, fail to disclose discoverable materials and events, destroy 'rough notes', or otherwise focus on one suspect to the exclusion of all else. It goes from incompetence to malfeasance. (I think O.J. was guilty. But the state did not prove it in the criminal trial.)
As we have seen with shootings of unarmed suspects: one time they may get the benefit of the doubt, twice and it becomes highly suspicious, and after multiple times it shows a pattern.
If such deeds happen, usually the worst that happens to the misbehavers is that they see the suspect freed. Unless Steven sues them and their insurance refuses to cover them. If they succeed, someone innocent may go to jail for life.
If 'the punishment fit the crime", those caught would go to prison for the equivalent length of time, Lt. Lenks. Some level of serious punishment is appropriate for such abuse of power. At the very least we should not have to listen to sermons about how most cops are good (which they certainly are). If this is 'just a few bad apples', then let's put those few in a different barrel, one with bars. Many Americans believe most politicians are crooked. Is it so hard to think that some cops might be too?
5
Justice for victims vs. justice for society. I wonder how murder victims can get justice. They are dead. How can families get justice for a deceased or injured person? These seem to be antiquated, barbaric ideas. Protection of society from proven threats is the only upside to punishment. Does capital punishment really give "closure?" I doubt it.
2
As a lawyer for 35 years my observation - when I get over feeling nausea - is that it appears clear both that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the slimy police and prosecutors and judge on display are common thoughout our judicial system. Equally important is the prejudice against poor, less educated, "unattractive" and somewhat marginal people - whatever color they may be. Isn't it telling that the "respectable" members of the community appear far more despicable than those on the margins. Very common in my lif and legal experience.
14
A recent Times story noted that the filmmakers omitted the victim's DNA being found on a bullet in Avery's possession. Filmmakers have a huge financial and reputational stake in "uncovering" miscarriages of justice, which often leads to them omitting or distorting evidence which undermines their thesis.
4
Ms. Griffin puts forth some good points in this article.
The justice system, it appears, is convinced of it's own theoretical ideology and operational integrity. This is a dangerous because it rejects the opportunity for self-assessment.
I'm not sure of Mr. Avery's guilt or innocence (I simply do not know all the facts of the case), but while watching 'Making A Murderer' I couldn't help but realize that a case such as this—so alarmingly loaded with what was quite clearly corrupt police procedure—could only ever end up as a win for the state prosecutors.
Mr. Avery's lawyers and investigators uncovered some extremely uncomfortable instances of possible police corruption and tampering of evidence that, if deemed realized by a not-guilty verdict and a subsequent DOJ Internal Affairs inquiry, would have caused a wave post-conviction appeals for every criminal case in Manitowoc county that had been charged by the offending officers. (And perhaps even those prosecuted by the DA.)
By virtue of this reality, the only resolution the authorities could or would ever allow in the case of Mr. Avery—at any length—was for a guilty verdict.
The justice system, it appears, is convinced of it's own theoretical ideology and operational integrity. This is a dangerous because it rejects the opportunity for self-assessment.
I'm not sure of Mr. Avery's guilt or innocence (I simply do not know all the facts of the case), but while watching 'Making A Murderer' I couldn't help but realize that a case such as this—so alarmingly loaded with what was quite clearly corrupt police procedure—could only ever end up as a win for the state prosecutors.
Mr. Avery's lawyers and investigators uncovered some extremely uncomfortable instances of possible police corruption and tampering of evidence that, if deemed realized by a not-guilty verdict and a subsequent DOJ Internal Affairs inquiry, would have caused a wave post-conviction appeals for every criminal case in Manitowoc county that had been charged by the offending officers. (And perhaps even those prosecuted by the DA.)
By virtue of this reality, the only resolution the authorities could or would ever allow in the case of Mr. Avery—at any length—was for a guilty verdict.
6
At the end of one of the last episodes, one of Mr. Avery's defense attorneys, Dean Strang said that there is a pervasive sense among all involved in the justice system-police, investigators, prosecutors and defense lawyers-that they are absolutely right and can't be troubled to question those beliefs because they have such certitude of their convictions. It was an incredibly insightful remark because if more of these folks would actually work harder to find out what the real truth is in many of the cases brought against poorer defendants, perhaps these documentary makers might have to seek out other subjects. It is painful to watch the system chew up these people who, had they better education, better family support, or a more honest system, among other things, might not end up in the predicaments they do.
6
What about the West Memphis Three? What about the Central Park Five? What about the Thin Blue Line (almost 30 years ago) for that matter? I enjoyed your article, but police misconduct and public fascination with it isn't breaking news. It is so painful to think of the betrayals of public trust, the horrible abuse of individuals in these cases, and they way it appears law enforcement preys on the poor and the unsophisticated or mentally disabled. It's disgraceful and disheartening.
11
As a former investigator for the defense, I watched the series with interest. However, I was not shocked and appalled as most viewers in that Avery's convictions were like many others, unique only because of his first wrongful conviction and the fact that he was suing the agency who investigated him while stupid enough to continue living in the same county. Here's a news flash - we are promised a fair trial, not perfect justice. While I agree that his last trial was biased, I also believe he is guilty of the crime, just not the way the prosecution alleged. What I saw was an entire clan joined together by dysfunction and inter-generational criminal behavior. In a rural county, law enforcement will always look closely at chronic offenders. The documentary was fascinating but omitted numerous salient facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe Avery was guilty. These include greeting the victim on previous occasions wearing only a towel for a scheduled appointment; her complaints about this to her boss and her refusal to go back and deal with Avery; the fact he called several times the day of her disappearance using other people's phones in order to make her believe she was going there to meet a different member of the family, and the list goes on. I think that people should consider his previous (and uncontested) felony convictions and decide what kind of man pours gasoline on a cat and burns it alive. Avery is where he belongs.
9
Your claim of being a "former investigator for the defense" is sufficiently vague to leave me uncertain of what "defense" you speak.
The allegation that Avery "greeted" Halbach in a bath towel echoes almost the exact language used by the prosecution, leaving me wondering what agenda you may be hiding. And your claim that Haibach had subsequently refused to return to do business with Avery has been debunked elsewhere.
You cannot possibly know what motive, if any, Avery may have had for calling Haibach from "other people's phones," if that did indeed happen at all.
And though I don't know enough about the cat incident to offer much of an opinion, I do recall it occurred while Avery was a teenager.
What I do wonder more about, however, is what kind of man is willing to send another human being to prison for life -- twice -- without sufficient evidence to do so honestly? And, what kind of man condones it?
The allegation that Avery "greeted" Halbach in a bath towel echoes almost the exact language used by the prosecution, leaving me wondering what agenda you may be hiding. And your claim that Haibach had subsequently refused to return to do business with Avery has been debunked elsewhere.
You cannot possibly know what motive, if any, Avery may have had for calling Haibach from "other people's phones," if that did indeed happen at all.
And though I don't know enough about the cat incident to offer much of an opinion, I do recall it occurred while Avery was a teenager.
What I do wonder more about, however, is what kind of man is willing to send another human being to prison for life -- twice -- without sufficient evidence to do so honestly? And, what kind of man condones it?
4
I have a law degree from the University of Wisconsin and was once a member of the Wisconsin Bar. (I'm now a health care provider in another state.)
I'm ashamed to have once been a member of the same bar that allows Ken Kratz and Len Kachinsky to practice. One's a drug addicted harasser of women, the other the poster boy for ineffective assistance of counsel. And Judges Fox and Willis are great examples of the argument that judges should be appointed rather than elected.
Steve Avery may have actually committed the murder. He's not exactly a model citizen. But that's not the point of the documentary. The point is that what little evidence the State presented was nowhere near enough to prove reasonable doubt. Car keys don't "magically" appear in the same little trailer home that's been searched multiple times already from top to bottom. Likewise, bullets don't "magically" appear in garages that have been thoroughly searched multiple times. Oh wait, if James Lenk is present, they do.
The interrogation methods used to elicit a "confession" from the young, intellectually disabled, extremely shy nephew were shocking and should not be allowed in a civilized nation. But I guess they're pretty commonly used, and that's why we have so many poor and not-very-smart people locked up in the U.S.A. It's a good thing you can't make a profit from running prisons, or we'd have even more incentive to lock up those who can't defend themselves. Oh wait . . . .
I'm ashamed to have once been a member of the same bar that allows Ken Kratz and Len Kachinsky to practice. One's a drug addicted harasser of women, the other the poster boy for ineffective assistance of counsel. And Judges Fox and Willis are great examples of the argument that judges should be appointed rather than elected.
Steve Avery may have actually committed the murder. He's not exactly a model citizen. But that's not the point of the documentary. The point is that what little evidence the State presented was nowhere near enough to prove reasonable doubt. Car keys don't "magically" appear in the same little trailer home that's been searched multiple times already from top to bottom. Likewise, bullets don't "magically" appear in garages that have been thoroughly searched multiple times. Oh wait, if James Lenk is present, they do.
The interrogation methods used to elicit a "confession" from the young, intellectually disabled, extremely shy nephew were shocking and should not be allowed in a civilized nation. But I guess they're pretty commonly used, and that's why we have so many poor and not-very-smart people locked up in the U.S.A. It's a good thing you can't make a profit from running prisons, or we'd have even more incentive to lock up those who can't defend themselves. Oh wait . . . .
125
I usually believe most people are guilty in the crime dramas I watch, because CNN and Dateline usually air the cases where the person is found guilty. However, I was shaken watching this how biased law enforcement seemed to be against this family. They absolutely railroaded the nephew who was only fifteen and more or less told him what they wanted him to say. He was taken out of school without his mother's knowledge and questioned without an attorney present. The kid is no genius and seemed to be wanting to make the cops happy so they would let him go. It was monstrous. And in the case of Steven Avery's first offense in which it was proved later that he was innocent, I absolutely would not trust any of the lawmen in that county on any more cases. I feel very badly for the victim and her family, but in this case I think the investigators are biased and unfair.
7
Popular fascination with the "truth" does not necessarily match the requirements of the "law." Indeed, it would appear that in a largely rigged criminal justice system such as ours has become, "neither good faith nor truth is a defense to any of the crimes charged." Those are the words of the trial judge who presided, in a New York courtroom, over one of America's leading "criminal satire" cases. After the conviction was secured, the same judge then declared that the defendant's "criminal intent brought you a parody over the line." The prosecution, on the other hand, was freely allowed to argue that the defendant "knows how to twist language, stir up controversy. As a result, what he can do is devious and disturbing. There is no way to sugarcoat this, the defendant is a menace." Perhaps not surprisingly, since the system itself is more about exacting justice than "good faith or truth," none of this seems to have been of too much concern to the appellate courts that have been reviewing the case. After all, one key value guiding the courts is that the public must not lose confidence in the criminal justice system. See the case documentation at:
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
2
why did they have to bully that mentally disabled person
4
Because they could. Same reason W invaded Iraq. Violence against weaker people is in our American blood.
1
Good points all around, albeit some are morose in terms of today's legal procedures. Reminded of the six or so John Oliver episodes that covered various topics surrounding incarceration. Our system needs a huge overhaul - not just in the sentences for crimes committed, but also the procedural element that favors the financially fortunate.
2
If you are of the poorer, more marginalized sector of society, a jury of your peers in a criminal trial can be a very dangerous thing, indeed. One gets the sense that Avery's final jury (and subsequent appellate judges) was composed of people who just wanted to quickly enforce the status quo and go home. Jurys would be better if composed of 3 or 4 skilled, trained people + citizenry.
4
Deciding someone is guilty and then bending your investigation backwards in their direction is what happened here, and I am sure in many cases. Avery's defense team surely blew enough holes in the prosecution's argument to leave many overwhelmingly reasonable doubts here. These are poor people, and we see even further how they are treated, by the prosecution and the media. And law enforcement is under so much pressure to solve crimes, and solve them to the mind set of juries who watch crime drama's on TV and believe there has to be this big puff from a smoking gun to quit is another problem. I believe Avery in innocent, but the sad part of this story is that he was asked to prove that. He did not go to trial innocent at all. And after all this settles and he is acquitted, which I think will happen, will anything change in our corrupt system. The detectives lied here. The Judge denied important evidence from coming forth and should have declared a mistrial many times.
3
I am very suspicious of any case that become a cause celeb. When the entertainment industry become involved it is not about guilt or not guilty or about justice or non justice it is about the industry exercising its power to change how the system is viewed by the public. Please remember that the word actor is from the Greek Hypocrite. Movies, Documentaries and the like are about propaganda nothing more.
2
That sounds like a thin excuse. Next you'll claim that newspapers too are only about propaganda, and TV too - quite naturally. So all of us should simply bury our heads in the sand and ignore everything that doesn't concern us directly. Some society that would be!
3
Well, here's hoping you never let any sort of facts disturb your firmly held opinions.
3
The problem is that the entertainment industry does not care about fact or the decision of a jury or anything else, they only care about the self aggrandizement that they will get. Jaded, you bet you third point of contact that I am jaded.
It seems to me that these false or coerced confessions at the hands of incompetent detectives and overzealous prosecuting attorneys are quite prevalent. There used to be a saying that “everyone in prison is innocent just ask them”. I am really beginning to feel that many people in prison are innocent. Police officers and detectives draw conclusions and prejudge people based on feelings they have or suspicions that the person is not acting like someone who is innocent, add to this prosecuting attorneys who accept coerced confessions and you have a system ripe for errors. I have seen many stories where the prosecution has purposely withheld evidence that would have either cleared or added great suspicions as to the guilt of the defendant. I think that we really need to do is hold accountable public officials who knowingly withhold or fabricate evidence that sends someone to prison who is later exonerated. If we start sending these individuals to prison or made them pay lawsuits won by the defendant this might curb the tide somewhat. I concluded some time ago to never talk to police or invite them to my home by calling 911 during a domestic dispute. I have very little confidence in the current system to really serve justice that is not prejudice or place myself or loved ones in harms way.
5
Exceptionally well written and thought out article with wide experience to back it up. This is a very important article that is a "must read" .
2
If Avery had been able to collect his windfall from Manitowoc County before he was accused of murdering Halbach I'll bet he would have hired lawyers who would have kept him out of jail to this day because of lack of hard evidence connecting him to the murder--money would have changed everything!
7
The documentary showed that Avery settled his suit with the county for (and I don't remember exactly the sum) about half-a-million dollars. He chose to settle rather than take the civil case to trial so that he would have the funds to launch an effective murder defense. So his attorneys in the Haibach case were well paid and did challenge the evidence presented in his murder conviction. The jury simply chose to ignore the substantial reasonable doubt presented by his defense team.
1
Please, the next time say spoiler alert! Some of us are still watching the series.
2
Always remember that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who had a confession beat out him by the police, a public defender with 300 cases to defend, a prosecutor and judge up for reelection, a crime lab with a record of wanting to "help" the prosecution make its case and a prison system that could easily be a gulag in russia.
There are simply no data bases that track miscarriages of justice, police shootings, prosecutors and police who lie, judges who are all to willing to convict and sentence to death, prison guards who stomp prisoners etc etc
and the cases where DNA finds all of these criminal justice resources still convict the wrong person. Let us not begin to talk about coercive plea bargain where if you ask for a trial and are convicted the judge will punish you with a longer sentence for exercising a constitutional right.
Innocent until proven guilty. I think it is in the constitution.
This is separate and apart from the damage done to victims. That is a separate story.
There are simply no data bases that track miscarriages of justice, police shootings, prosecutors and police who lie, judges who are all to willing to convict and sentence to death, prison guards who stomp prisoners etc etc
and the cases where DNA finds all of these criminal justice resources still convict the wrong person. Let us not begin to talk about coercive plea bargain where if you ask for a trial and are convicted the judge will punish you with a longer sentence for exercising a constitutional right.
Innocent until proven guilty. I think it is in the constitution.
This is separate and apart from the damage done to victims. That is a separate story.
10
To introduce an idea into this discussion: there is the concept of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE rather than what is being discussed here which is JUDICIAL JUSTICE.
In Restorative Justice, the assumption is that the victims and the defendants are most involved in a crime are the people who have the most at stake in understanding both what happened and what should be done for reparation. And this is done in several counties in California that I know about and in a number of educational systems as a way to teach by example what it means to actually involve young people in this process. I also have hard about a murder case in Florida which was tried under this process.
I also facilitate teaching this process in a state prison, and it's my observation that the realization of relationship that comes out of this work is literally transforming to the men personally and societally. The comment that one hears from people who have gone through this process is their commitment to going back out to their families and societies and teaching what they have been learning through this process.
In Restorative Justice, the assumption is that the victims and the defendants are most involved in a crime are the people who have the most at stake in understanding both what happened and what should be done for reparation. And this is done in several counties in California that I know about and in a number of educational systems as a way to teach by example what it means to actually involve young people in this process. I also have hard about a murder case in Florida which was tried under this process.
I also facilitate teaching this process in a state prison, and it's my observation that the realization of relationship that comes out of this work is literally transforming to the men personally and societally. The comment that one hears from people who have gone through this process is their commitment to going back out to their families and societies and teaching what they have been learning through this process.
3
The problem with the criminal justice system as highlighted by Making a Murder is that no one wants to be proved wrong. All parties begin from a defensive position. Prosecutors don't want their cases thrown out. Police don't want their work questioned. The FBI crime lab needs to retain an unblemished reputation.
The stakes in fact are sky-high for any individual proved wrong. Instead of exhaling in a collective sigh of relief that a wrong has been righted, prosecutors can lose their jobs, police officers can lose out on promotions, the FBI crime lab loses its reputation as the top lab in the nation, perhaps the world.
That is the crux of the issue. Perhaps if we, the public, didn't come down so hard on officials that made wrong decisions - as long as all avenues of exploration are kept open and those wrongs are corrected - our officials wouldn't dig their heels in and impede justice.
The stakes in fact are sky-high for any individual proved wrong. Instead of exhaling in a collective sigh of relief that a wrong has been righted, prosecutors can lose their jobs, police officers can lose out on promotions, the FBI crime lab loses its reputation as the top lab in the nation, perhaps the world.
That is the crux of the issue. Perhaps if we, the public, didn't come down so hard on officials that made wrong decisions - as long as all avenues of exploration are kept open and those wrongs are corrected - our officials wouldn't dig their heels in and impede justice.
5
I have not seen this show, but this article does not seem to do it many favors in terms of defense of the arguments apparently presented. The article is not required to put its best foot forward, but after reading this I know nothing about the case in particular; most importantly I do not know why the defendants' guilt is seeming;ly in doubt (or not).
How do we have justice without truth? Which episode showed Steven Avery dosing a cat with gasoline and throwing it into a bonfire?
4
It's called the "justice" system and justice should be the only priority. A politically ambitious prosecutor or poor defense attorney can cast that notion to the wind, to the detriment of accused and accuser alike. If winning is the priority, it becomes a game, when it is always about people's lives and reputations. It's no game to the accused or the loved ones of those injured or killed by the accused.
5
If justice is the only priority, why should judges spend money to be elected? Alas, only the almighty dollar rules.
When I was in law school, I believed the line that it was better to let 9 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. Then I got in the business, for over 30 yrs, and found out that between lazy/incompetent/bigoted prosecutors and judges and defense lawyers, many many guilty people go free. And I never saw an innocent person convicted, although one defense lawyer told me that one of his clients (of thousands over the years) was innocent.
I think avery is guilty from all the evidence presented although I've not read the transcript of the trial. If you've read the transcript, then you know more than I do. But a man who tortures and kills a cat, and serial murderers often kill animals, and who wants to build a torture chamber for women, and who has the record of abuse of women (outside of the rape for which he was exonerated) and the victim is found in the same fire pit at the defendant's home/work place in which the cat was killed? Sounds "beyond a reasonable doubt" to me.
I think avery is guilty from all the evidence presented although I've not read the transcript of the trial. If you've read the transcript, then you know more than I do. But a man who tortures and kills a cat, and serial murderers often kill animals, and who wants to build a torture chamber for women, and who has the record of abuse of women (outside of the rape for which he was exonerated) and the victim is found in the same fire pit at the defendant's home/work place in which the cat was killed? Sounds "beyond a reasonable doubt" to me.
4
If it's true that in 30 years you've never seen an innocent person convicted it says a lot more about you than it does about our justice system.
1
You think he's guilty? Then where was all the blood? In his bedroom and the garage, no traces of blood at all. He was set up by the cops, as was his poor nephew.
6
I don't think this is about either justice or truth. It's about entertainment.
Yes, our criminal justice system is flawed, like any human endeavor. What is ignored in both this case and the "Serial" podcast is that the vast majority of all crimes, including about half of all murders, are never solved. So most victims of crimes never see any justice.
Yes, our criminal justice system is flawed, like any human endeavor. What is ignored in both this case and the "Serial" podcast is that the vast majority of all crimes, including about half of all murders, are never solved. So most victims of crimes never see any justice.
2
Well, murder victims never do.
If anyone who has seen "Making A Murderer" has any residual doubts about the uncertainty of being judged by a jury of one's peers, I would steer them in the direction of "Badlands, Texas" now airing on the National Geographic Channel. If MAM is the #1 example of justice compromised, then "Badlands" is easily 1A.
2
"The United States’ criminal justice system needs fewer guilt-assuming interrogation tactics, more disclosure of potentially exculpatory information to the defense, expanded oversight units within prosecutors’ offices to investigate potential miscarriages of justice, and fuller appellate scrutiny of convictions."
Does this sound like the plethora of stories of other regulatory, business and professional malfeasance? It should. Prosecutors, police and judges are hired, elected and promoted on quantifiable results, much as Wall Street brokers and CEOs thrive on their profit margins. "Tough on crime" sells - "Rehabilitated the misguided" does not, though it should.
A lawyer friend of mind once said that "You are not guaranteed justice, just due process". Where there is a profit motive - in this case measured in convictions, arrests, traffic tickets or perhaps petty revenge, even this will be compromised often as a matter of course. The secondary profit motives stretch from the ticket-mills of Ferguson, MO to the for-profit prisons of Arizona.
The criminal justice industry will change when the metrics and "profit motive" of arrest, conviction and incarceration change, but not until then -- the rest is just armchair quarterbacking and hand wringing.
Does this sound like the plethora of stories of other regulatory, business and professional malfeasance? It should. Prosecutors, police and judges are hired, elected and promoted on quantifiable results, much as Wall Street brokers and CEOs thrive on their profit margins. "Tough on crime" sells - "Rehabilitated the misguided" does not, though it should.
A lawyer friend of mind once said that "You are not guaranteed justice, just due process". Where there is a profit motive - in this case measured in convictions, arrests, traffic tickets or perhaps petty revenge, even this will be compromised often as a matter of course. The secondary profit motives stretch from the ticket-mills of Ferguson, MO to the for-profit prisons of Arizona.
The criminal justice industry will change when the metrics and "profit motive" of arrest, conviction and incarceration change, but not until then -- the rest is just armchair quarterbacking and hand wringing.
5
@Scott. Very well-put. Yesterday I observed a session of the Yonkers, NY traffic court. The traffic court is clearly a well-oiled revenue generator, with four cashier's windows and an ATM stationed right outside the designated courtroom. As for due process: prior to one's scheduled appearance before the judge, the defendant doesn't meet with a prosecutor. Rather the officer (state, local, county or other, e.g. MTA), who issued the ticket calls out the name of the defendant and asks why they're pleading "not guilty" and then offers some form of plea deal.
The danger of course, is that if you're a defendant whose not guilty plea is based on an argument with the officer's action/report (which is generally the case) you've now unwittingly provided your accuser your testimony in advance of his/hers. So if a defendant doesn't accept the plea deal and opts instead for the hearing before the judge, the officer can tailor his/her statement to account for any discrepancies and head the defendant's argument off before the defendant even has an opportunity to speak.
Given the weight already granted the officers' testimony in traffic court, under even the most favorable circumstances it's an uphill battle to successfully challenge the ticket and fine. Most of the people yesterday were clearly ill at ease, had no sense of what their rights' might be and disclosed themselves to the officers charging them. How this qualifies as an example of due process completely eludes me.
The danger of course, is that if you're a defendant whose not guilty plea is based on an argument with the officer's action/report (which is generally the case) you've now unwittingly provided your accuser your testimony in advance of his/hers. So if a defendant doesn't accept the plea deal and opts instead for the hearing before the judge, the officer can tailor his/her statement to account for any discrepancies and head the defendant's argument off before the defendant even has an opportunity to speak.
Given the weight already granted the officers' testimony in traffic court, under even the most favorable circumstances it's an uphill battle to successfully challenge the ticket and fine. Most of the people yesterday were clearly ill at ease, had no sense of what their rights' might be and disclosed themselves to the officers charging them. How this qualifies as an example of due process completely eludes me.
3
Ms. Griffin says "When I was a federal prosecutor, I had the luxury of working only on carefully screened cases with strong evidence," which is essentially what all the actors in our flawed criminal justice system say: "*I'm* doing good, it's those *other* bad apples."
What "Making a Murderer" impressed upon me the most was how the entire system is stacked against criminal defendants, especially those from the lower classes: the detectives, prosecutors, and judges were all part of the same tribe, and ruthlessly exploited their legal authority, greater intelligence, higher social class, and financial advantages in order to imprison folks they didn't like (Avery & Dassey) without regard for justice.
Until the Ms. Griffins of the world are willing to turn a critical eye to themselves and their role in the system our criminal justice system will continue to have deep flaws.
Ms. Griffin used to be a federal prosecutor. Federal prosecutors have enormous power during plea bargaining because they can exploit mandatory minimums to create absurd sentences: "plead to X and get 5 or go to trial I'll charge you with X, Y, and Z and you'll get 50 if you lose." But hey, all her cases were strong with carefully screened evidence so I'm sure justice was served in the end.
What "Making a Murderer" impressed upon me the most was how the entire system is stacked against criminal defendants, especially those from the lower classes: the detectives, prosecutors, and judges were all part of the same tribe, and ruthlessly exploited their legal authority, greater intelligence, higher social class, and financial advantages in order to imprison folks they didn't like (Avery & Dassey) without regard for justice.
Until the Ms. Griffins of the world are willing to turn a critical eye to themselves and their role in the system our criminal justice system will continue to have deep flaws.
Ms. Griffin used to be a federal prosecutor. Federal prosecutors have enormous power during plea bargaining because they can exploit mandatory minimums to create absurd sentences: "plead to X and get 5 or go to trial I'll charge you with X, Y, and Z and you'll get 50 if you lose." But hey, all her cases were strong with carefully screened evidence so I'm sure justice was served in the end.
5
Michael Smerconisch did an extended interview with the prosecutor of the Avery case and, with a careful analysis of multiple independent facts, convinced me beyond any doubt that Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Making a documentary is not making a legal case, and however enjoyable it may be to watch, it has its own dramatic agenda that deviates from the hard facts.
These include:
- the consistency of the Dassey testimony as given to two different people
- presence of Avery sweat DNA on the hood latch of the victim's car
- the presence of the victims burned camera and other articles on Avery's property
- the presence of bleach stains on Dassey's clothes
I'd convict him in a heartbeat.
Given this, the author chose a bad example for a lengthy op-ed piece.
Making a documentary is not making a legal case, and however enjoyable it may be to watch, it has its own dramatic agenda that deviates from the hard facts.
These include:
- the consistency of the Dassey testimony as given to two different people
- presence of Avery sweat DNA on the hood latch of the victim's car
- the presence of the victims burned camera and other articles on Avery's property
- the presence of bleach stains on Dassey's clothes
I'd convict him in a heartbeat.
Given this, the author chose a bad example for a lengthy op-ed piece.
4
Having sat on two juries, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take my chances with one if I were accused and tried for a crime.
52
I was once in a jury pool for a trial that revolved around the death of a child who was strangled by a car's power window that closed on his neck while he was left alone in the vehicle. Who was responsible - the man who had left the boy alone in the car, the mother who had left the child in the care of her boyfriend while she traveled out of state, or GM, whose power windows had no automatic retract feature? The company had a great lawyer, who managed to be both slick and folksy at the same time - he confirmed my impression that in the justice system you get what you pay for. My prejudice was against the big corporation, but I don't know how I'd have decided if I'd been selected. Most of the actual jurors expressed views of individual responsibility - don't blame others for your misdeeds - that seemed to favor the defense.
A month later I met one of the jurors in the P.O. When she told me they had exonerated GM, after three weeks of trial, I had to inform her that the outcome had been reported in the press - GM had settled out of court for a sum of money. She was crestfallen - she'd spent a month of her life on a decision that had essentially meant nothing. I was glad I hadn't been seated on that jury.
A month later I met one of the jurors in the P.O. When she told me they had exonerated GM, after three weeks of trial, I had to inform her that the outcome had been reported in the press - GM had settled out of court for a sum of money. She was crestfallen - she'd spent a month of her life on a decision that had essentially meant nothing. I was glad I hadn't been seated on that jury.
2
Many viewers have treated the series as a whodunnit, overlooking the systemic problems in the criminal justice system that it illustrates. These problems exist nationwide, from east to west, from north to south, from densely populated metropolises to rural backwaters. What makes this series so compelling is that they all converge in this case.
- Police and prosecutors are more focused on getting a conviction than in convicting the right person.
- Police plant evidence far more often than we'd like to believe.
- Police employ dubious interrogation techniques that encourage false confessions.
- Appointed lawyers and some public defenders do little to defend their clients because they're not being paid enough.
- Forensic pseudoscience is often allowed in as evidence.
- Juries fail to grasp the concept of "reasonable doubt."
Victims' families seem fond of saying that justice has been served when an accused has been found guilty. But justice does not occur when juries arrive at an outcome that the prosecution likes. On the contrary, justice is a process, not an outcome. Only when these issues with the criminal justice system have been addressed can we truly say that justice has been served.
- Police and prosecutors are more focused on getting a conviction than in convicting the right person.
- Police plant evidence far more often than we'd like to believe.
- Police employ dubious interrogation techniques that encourage false confessions.
- Appointed lawyers and some public defenders do little to defend their clients because they're not being paid enough.
- Forensic pseudoscience is often allowed in as evidence.
- Juries fail to grasp the concept of "reasonable doubt."
Victims' families seem fond of saying that justice has been served when an accused has been found guilty. But justice does not occur when juries arrive at an outcome that the prosecution likes. On the contrary, justice is a process, not an outcome. Only when these issues with the criminal justice system have been addressed can we truly say that justice has been served.
17
I never met e lawyer who did not play to win.
It did not matter that they possessed facts which would cause a reasonable person in their position to conclude that they should not win.
The system simply does not work.
It did not matter that they possessed facts which would cause a reasonable person in their position to conclude that they should not win.
The system simply does not work.
3
"Making a Murder" is often discussed as if it is a single case when in fact it is three separate cases. In the first rape case against Avery there was evidence which exonerated him and he was in fact not guilty. In the case against Dassey it was based on a "confession" obtained through methods and under circumstances without forensic evidence such as to make his guilt questionable. Both of these cases are classic situations where innocent defendants are wrongly convicted. However in the murder case against Avery, it should be objectively recognized that there was sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. Even if, as was inferred in the series that the police may have planted the key or even other evidence against Avery, this does not change the fact that a burnt body was found on his property. It is one thing to accuse the police of planting evidence, does anyone believe they would have murdered an innocent woman to frame Avery? Like most of the world, the reality seems to be gray rather then on each side being completely black and white. And the ultimate "truth" probably is that both sides may be both right and wrong depending on the specific case. In the same way that just because the LA police may have been biased or even corrupt doesn't mean OJ didn't actually do it.
10
"Our culture is steeped in procedural crime dramas." Based upon this striking statement, the author's conclusion suggests that maybe our culture is ready for reform. Agreed! I am not a regular viewer of any crime drama. Often I have wondered why others do not see the connection between a daily diet of horrific news stories, pop culture's fascination for crime dramas, social media rants and raves, crime movies, and the depressing reality of shootings, killings, rapes, abuses, suicides. I am not suggesting that journalists quit reporting the truth. I am suggesting that to promote good health, our daily/nightly viewing/communicating diet could stand a huge amount of "reform, culturally and politically."
2
The obsession to get a conviction of Steven Avery in Making a Murderer led to misconduct by the Sheriff's department and the prosecutors office. The Sheriff's department and prosecutor's office actually believed and stated that they were professionals with distinguished careers who found it insulting that they were questioned in any manner about how and when they found evidence. This was the same group that sent Steven Avery to prison where he sat for 18 years on a rape that he did not commit until it was overturned on DNA evidence. Even though they received concerns within the Sheriff's Department that they had the wrong guy.
Avery also had a lawsuit against the county and individuals within the Sheriff's department for $36 Million at the time of the 2nd charges against him which was murder along with 5 other charges. So the track record of the Sheriff's Department was already terrible and now they had their own motives for burying Avery.
The interrogation of the nephew who at the time I believe was 15 and has learning challenges was outrageous. He was there without a lawyer and was basically led to say what they wanted to hear. He thought afterwards he could go back to school as he had a "project due in 6th hour." The court appointed lawyer was a complete moron and worked against the nephew but is now a sitting judge. The prosecutor was a drug addict. The evidence used in the trial miraculously appeared when the Sheriff's Dept was involved.
Now how do you feel?
Avery also had a lawsuit against the county and individuals within the Sheriff's department for $36 Million at the time of the 2nd charges against him which was murder along with 5 other charges. So the track record of the Sheriff's Department was already terrible and now they had their own motives for burying Avery.
The interrogation of the nephew who at the time I believe was 15 and has learning challenges was outrageous. He was there without a lawyer and was basically led to say what they wanted to hear. He thought afterwards he could go back to school as he had a "project due in 6th hour." The court appointed lawyer was a complete moron and worked against the nephew but is now a sitting judge. The prosecutor was a drug addict. The evidence used in the trial miraculously appeared when the Sheriff's Dept was involved.
Now how do you feel?
12
Well said.
“Making a Murderer” and the first season of the podcast “Serial,” are bringing the failures of due process into focus: careless police work, flawed forensics, forceful interrogations, unreliable witnesses and the woeful condition of state-funded criminal defense.
The author forgot to mention corrupt government prosecutors who violate the U. S. Supreme Court "Brady" mandate to provide, in the interests of justice, evidence in their possession that would tend to exonerate the criminal defendent or impeach the credibility of government prosecution witnesses. Of course, the U. S. Supreme Court has also provided for absolute immunity from prosecution for government prosecutors who violate this mandate. So, corrupt government prosecutors have no fear whatever for violating a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
The author forgot to mention corrupt government prosecutors who violate the U. S. Supreme Court "Brady" mandate to provide, in the interests of justice, evidence in their possession that would tend to exonerate the criminal defendent or impeach the credibility of government prosecution witnesses. Of course, the U. S. Supreme Court has also provided for absolute immunity from prosecution for government prosecutors who violate this mandate. So, corrupt government prosecutors have no fear whatever for violating a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
3
Prosecutors are actually not immune to being prosecuted. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
"Reasonable doubts are for innocent people." Mr. Avery was, at the moment those words were uttered by the prosecutor during final argument and before the jury returned with a verdict of "guilty", presumed in law to be an innocent person. I found that statement by the prosecutor to be as shocking as the obvious lies told from the stand, under oath, by assorted law-enforcement people, especially the local police force which shouldn't have been directly involved in the investigation at all yet managed to uncover all the significant forensic evidence, albeit in a less-than-timely fashion; the unconscionable interrogation tactics used against the juvenile and clearly mentally-challenged Mr. Dassey; the completely different theories of the crime offered at the two trials; the spinelessness of the judge; and pretty much everything else associated with this case, as well as the case which ended in Mr. Avery's wrongful conviction years earlier. I have no idea whether Mr. Avery killed Ms. Halbach, but that is beside the point in any consideration of how this case was handled, from beginning to end. And while I appreciate this article, I would point out that this may or may not have been a "gruesome" murder (as opposed to a quick one followed by appalling treatment of the remains): like everything else associated with this case, it's one more thing that won't likely ever be known for sure.
15
I believe the perception of many Americans is that all too often innocent people go to prison, or even worse, to death row. And this is true - perfection is an ideal, but even one is one too many. After all, we're not talking about merely burning the toast once in a while here, these are peoples' lives and the lives of their families at stake.
On the other hand, we also hear many cases of obviously violent criminals who are more certainly guilty than Mr. Avery for instance, getting off on a 'technicality' or with a 'slap on the wrist' sentence. These cases are anecdotal, but most certainly also happen.
As the Op-ed points out, the portrayal of the justice system in popular entertainment that most people don't seem to realize has almost nothing to do with reality aside, where do we as an ostensibly just society draw the line? Is it worth letting 10 guilty people go free to ensure that 1 innocent person isn't wrongly punished? Is this in itself simply a straw-man argument? If so, then we need to demand more oversight, openness and accountability from our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
On the other hand, we also hear many cases of obviously violent criminals who are more certainly guilty than Mr. Avery for instance, getting off on a 'technicality' or with a 'slap on the wrist' sentence. These cases are anecdotal, but most certainly also happen.
As the Op-ed points out, the portrayal of the justice system in popular entertainment that most people don't seem to realize has almost nothing to do with reality aside, where do we as an ostensibly just society draw the line? Is it worth letting 10 guilty people go free to ensure that 1 innocent person isn't wrongly punished? Is this in itself simply a straw-man argument? If so, then we need to demand more oversight, openness and accountability from our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
This is just precious:
"When I was a federal prosecutor, I had the luxury of working only on carefully screened cases with strong evidence. But fewer than 70,000 federal felonies are prosecuted each year, while roughly 2.5 million felonies proceed through the state courts. Many state cases involve near-simultaneous investigation and prosecution. One rarely finds out 'what really happened.'”
That is wildly, breathtakingly inaccurate. Perhaps if Ms. Griffin cared enough about the criminal justice system to actually work on some of those 2.5 million felonies in state court (instead of spending a few years working on carefully curated cases in a federal office before using the position as a stepping-stone to a cushy private practice job) she might have a better understanding of that system.
This kind of myopia inflicts most lawyers, but is particularly acute in federal prosecutors. The implication is, "if I can't do it no one can do it, therefore anyone who *is* doing it must necessarily be doing it poorly." Oh, how difficult life must be to be an island of competence, surrounded by such an ocean of pathetic, lazy humanity!
Seriously: how about more people get involved and work toward making the criminal justice system better, instead of blogging (and op-eding) our outrage as we slowly melt into the couch in front of Netflix? How about the NYTimes presents the perspectives of those who have actually labored in the real criminal justice system? That would help more than this.
"When I was a federal prosecutor, I had the luxury of working only on carefully screened cases with strong evidence. But fewer than 70,000 federal felonies are prosecuted each year, while roughly 2.5 million felonies proceed through the state courts. Many state cases involve near-simultaneous investigation and prosecution. One rarely finds out 'what really happened.'”
That is wildly, breathtakingly inaccurate. Perhaps if Ms. Griffin cared enough about the criminal justice system to actually work on some of those 2.5 million felonies in state court (instead of spending a few years working on carefully curated cases in a federal office before using the position as a stepping-stone to a cushy private practice job) she might have a better understanding of that system.
This kind of myopia inflicts most lawyers, but is particularly acute in federal prosecutors. The implication is, "if I can't do it no one can do it, therefore anyone who *is* doing it must necessarily be doing it poorly." Oh, how difficult life must be to be an island of competence, surrounded by such an ocean of pathetic, lazy humanity!
Seriously: how about more people get involved and work toward making the criminal justice system better, instead of blogging (and op-eding) our outrage as we slowly melt into the couch in front of Netflix? How about the NYTimes presents the perspectives of those who have actually labored in the real criminal justice system? That would help more than this.
10
The legal system is never about truth but justice and a final result.
The right to have an attorney should be interpreted as granting all suspects effective counsel BEFORE any questioning. Without it we will continue to get false convictions.
5
As one of the lawyers so wisely stated (I paraphrase), "You can control whether you commit a crime; You cannot control who accuses you of a crime."
9
It is a small point in this article, but a definite misstatement that Law & Order always provided neat resolutions to cases. It often showed the prosecution failing and sometimes did not provide a decision on who the guilty party was. Of course fiction is always much neater than reality, but Law & Order was excellent at providing a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg of uncertainty that is intrinsic throughout the criminal justice system. These evocations of the real were part of the reason it was so engaging and is still on the air most nights of the week, allowing us to reconsider the questions raised by the stories. But we all know, however much L&O might give us a strong sense of reality, it was fiction. Much more of a problem exists when filmmakers and writers adopt the mantle of truth and represent complex cases as whodunits, provoking responses that have more to do with publicity and politics than the legal process.. Yet even that is not as serious a problem as prosecutors and law enforcement motivated by the quest for a "win," creating fictional certainties out of ambiguity for the purpose of convincing a selection of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty.
1
What is "reasonable doubt"? Does the justice system ever define it in terms of a probability? We need to decide what percentage of innocent people we are willing to send to jail and state this plainly. A good way to think about this is in terms of betting. How much money would you be willing to bet that Steve Avery is guilty for $1 of winnings? Is reasonable doubt one day of your income or a lifetime of income? I am not completely convinced Steve Avery is guilty but I have no idea what constitutes reasonable doubt in this case.
2
Trial by "documentary" again trumps trial by a jury where evidence and the law rule The modern media consumer wants a quick hour of visuals that will paint for them a picture that the "documentarian" wants them to take away. The picture usually has little or anything to do with truth.
I spent many years as a big city police officer and detective, retiring as a homicide detective. I know that disqualifies me as a believable source in today's world, but I never had to use the investigative, interrogation techniques suggested in that "documentary." I never sent a case to the prosecutor that wasn't fully investigated and worthy of a hearing by the jury. That was true of my colleagues as well.
It's too bad that it appears that most who viewed this "documentary" believe every word and image portrayed. If those convicted in this case are ever released, I only ask that one of these people step up and invite them to dinner.
I spent many years as a big city police officer and detective, retiring as a homicide detective. I know that disqualifies me as a believable source in today's world, but I never had to use the investigative, interrogation techniques suggested in that "documentary." I never sent a case to the prosecutor that wasn't fully investigated and worthy of a hearing by the jury. That was true of my colleagues as well.
It's too bad that it appears that most who viewed this "documentary" believe every word and image portrayed. If those convicted in this case are ever released, I only ask that one of these people step up and invite them to dinner.
30
I take it you haven't seen the documentary: the most damning bits are the public statements and the hard evidence, all admitted.
Here, the "murder site" was alleged to be in two different places in two separate trials - resulting in two life sentences for the murder of the same woman.
The physical evidence means that the murder site could not have been in either location. There was no blood, fiber, victim DNA or luminol reaction in the bedroom (where a rape and attempted murder allegedly took place), and no trace of a murder in the garage (where the victim allegedly was shot 10 times). Only a single bullet fragment, with inconclusive trace DNA, was found in the garage.
Some have speculative: "Well, he could have killed her elsewhere on the property - maybe he killed her outside." Nice theory, except that the prosecution found and based their case in large part on the bullet fragment in the garage with her DNA.
There is only one rational explanation: the bullet was planted, as well as the other DNA evidence (most of which is either in trace amounts or was found under suspicious circumstances). It's a breathtaking allegation - and the reason the documentary is so successful as it painstakingly backs it up with evidence, motive, opportunity... and propensity.
Here, the "murder site" was alleged to be in two different places in two separate trials - resulting in two life sentences for the murder of the same woman.
The physical evidence means that the murder site could not have been in either location. There was no blood, fiber, victim DNA or luminol reaction in the bedroom (where a rape and attempted murder allegedly took place), and no trace of a murder in the garage (where the victim allegedly was shot 10 times). Only a single bullet fragment, with inconclusive trace DNA, was found in the garage.
Some have speculative: "Well, he could have killed her elsewhere on the property - maybe he killed her outside." Nice theory, except that the prosecution found and based their case in large part on the bullet fragment in the garage with her DNA.
There is only one rational explanation: the bullet was planted, as well as the other DNA evidence (most of which is either in trace amounts or was found under suspicious circumstances). It's a breathtaking allegation - and the reason the documentary is so successful as it painstakingly backs it up with evidence, motive, opportunity... and propensity.
5
As it's likely that most of those intended to be represented by this documentary likely have extensive prior criminal histories that are undisputed, regardless of whether or not they're railroaded in one instance, those inviting them to dinner on their release should take care to watch the silverware.
But thanks for your service, David: the life of a homicide cop must be a pretty tough one.
But thanks for your service, David: the life of a homicide cop must be a pretty tough one.
It's good to know that ethical law-enforcement exists somewhere, and I hope it's common. It's naturally the miscarriages of justice that attract attention, and when they are looked for they are all-too-easy to find. It's incumbent on the ethical police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges to police their own realms and to expose cases of wrong-doing. Unfortunately, such actions often are taken at the cost of the whistle-blower's own career, which encourages and rewards looking the other way.
2
I think the dated buzzword 'closure,' as in needing closure in a relationship, mourning, any transaction - is running smack up against the justice system. Closure used to be a term that meant moving on with some satisfaction and resolve. Now, especially in cases like this, closure seems only to mean being 'right' no matter the cost, and then moving on. But closure is no longer a conclusion. Closure has merely become a false bottom to a much deeper pit.
1
This is a film that came along at just the right time -- when Americans are suspicious of both police and government. However, to tell a good story you must have a viewpoint, which the filmmakers clearly did. Their viewpoint is that a mistake (an innocent man convicted) was made twice; that corruption reigns. That point may have been made at the expense of the victim. The mistakes by police and problems with the criminal justice system do not mean Steven Avery is innocent, they just mean we have a corrupt system. A lot of viewers seem confused by this distinction.
1
One factor that I have not seen considered and which crossed my mind as I watched the series is the problem inherent in electing judges. A judge who has to stand for re election can't help but be influenced by public opinion. Perhaps it was my imagination but it appeared to me that the judges both at trial and on appeal seemed to favor the prosecution.
Before moving to Louisiana I lived most of my life in Rhode Island where judges are appointed not elected. Appointments are made by the governor from a list of candidates prepared by the bar association and who also screen potential appointees for competency, etc.
John Oliver did a an episode on elected judges in which he pointed out that Bolivia is the only other country in the world that elects their judges. Here in Louisiana one member of the State Supreme Court is suing the other 4 members in Federal Court because they insisted he recuse himself from a case in which he received a $200,000.00 campaign contribution from the plaintiff's attorney.
Before moving to Louisiana I lived most of my life in Rhode Island where judges are appointed not elected. Appointments are made by the governor from a list of candidates prepared by the bar association and who also screen potential appointees for competency, etc.
John Oliver did a an episode on elected judges in which he pointed out that Bolivia is the only other country in the world that elects their judges. Here in Louisiana one member of the State Supreme Court is suing the other 4 members in Federal Court because they insisted he recuse himself from a case in which he received a $200,000.00 campaign contribution from the plaintiff's attorney.
29
In America the question is and has always been "How much justice can you afford?"
45
In court, the judge spoke of Avery's overturned conviction as if it still stood. What more does it take to recognize that Avery did not receive a fair trial? Watching this series made reading Kafka's *The Trial* like a walk in the park.
11
The justice system revealed in "Making a Murderer" has also imposed death sentences on thousands of people in this country. Seeing how it really works, can anyone still believe that the system is able to reliably decide who deserves capital punishment?
12
Nice try Ms. Griffin, but Steven Avery wasn't just accused of a gruesome murder. He was convicted. And it takes almost no time to do a search of this case, to learn of the evidence tying Mr. Avery to the gruesome murder of Ms. Halbach that either was not presented by the filmmakers, or was not allowed to be presented at his trial.
11
You just don't get it do you? It's not whether you're guilty or innocent but whether you get a fair trial! And it's pretty clear that Avery and Dassey didn't. And as for the evidence you cite: Some of it (actually, big pieces of it) is contradictory and of suspicious origin. Your response makes me wonder if you agree that all of us are entitled to due process? As Jerry Buting says at the end of the documentary (not verbatim, but close): "We all say we know we won't commit a crime. But we don't know if we'll ever be accused of a crime. And if that happens, God help you in this legal system." P.S. Read the 6th amendment to the Constitution.
4
Nice try yourself, Mr. Wisconsin apologist. None of the excluded evidence is very credible in light of the overwhelming malfeasance demonstrated by the police.
I ain't buying what you are selling and neither is any one that actually watched. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I ain't buying what you are selling and neither is any one that actually watched. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
In a jury pool I was part of, the judge asked potential jurors if they could 'set aside' their biases and be fair and impartial. Most of them said yes. This while the defendant was being represented by a lawyer from the public defender's office who clearly passed the bar day before yesterday. His questions to jurors were idiotic. If the defendant had been wealthy, do you think he'd have a public defender with limited experience? So much for fair.
Impartial? Nobody no place is impartial. An example. One lawyer wore a bright red tie. Imagine a scenario where, as a child, you were once humiliated or frightened by a man wearing a red tie. You don't recall the incident, certainly not the red tie, but it's in your brain someplace. Your decide you don't like red tie attorney, and no matter what the evidence is, you aren't letting him win the case.
We are all chock full of biases, many of which we see as 'beliefs' or don't see at all. A justice system that relies on twelve human beings in the box, and a gaggle of lawyers, judges and cops is neither fair nor impartial and can never be.
Impartial? Nobody no place is impartial. An example. One lawyer wore a bright red tie. Imagine a scenario where, as a child, you were once humiliated or frightened by a man wearing a red tie. You don't recall the incident, certainly not the red tie, but it's in your brain someplace. Your decide you don't like red tie attorney, and no matter what the evidence is, you aren't letting him win the case.
We are all chock full of biases, many of which we see as 'beliefs' or don't see at all. A justice system that relies on twelve human beings in the box, and a gaggle of lawyers, judges and cops is neither fair nor impartial and can never be.
9
Please stop comparing "Making a Murderer" to the Serial podcast. Other than the fact the main subject in each is a convicted criminal, they have little in common. Serial is journalism at its finest, while "Making a Murderer" is well crafted propaganda.
9
That is your opinion
2
"Propaganda" is information that is, by definition, biased and misleading. Even if you think Making a Murderer left out information that would make Avery seem more culpable, or make him or his family less sympathetic, the point of Making a Murderer wasn't to prove Avery's innocence - it was to indict the system that convicted him and his learning disabled nephew as unfair. What proof is there that the system operated fairly for either of them? What is misleading about the documentary at that level?
1
Valuable Perspective. Ms. Griffin uses snippets of dialogue from the documentary with which she disagrees. Here's another quotation from Mr. Avery that is correct: "Poor people lose all the time."
62
While it is true that poor people lose all the time, Mr. Avery had a defense budget of $400,000.
1
Good and restrained opinion piece. I like to be less restrained: The criminal justice system in the US is beyond repairable. It must be replaced. The proof: We have 5-10 times more criminals and incarcerated people in the US than in western civilized countries. I follows that we fabricate evidence and/or incarcerate too long. And it is not that we are a society that is more free and act more criminally.
The starting point is to change the objective for the entire system: It must be to have the minimal necessary number of people convicted while maintaining safety.
When Sandra Bland had the courage to stand up against the bully of a police officer; the police officer just made her a criminal by taunting her to resist an arrest. If everything had gone normal: The crime statistics would say that a violent offender was arrested and the police office gets a bonus for great work. You can be sure that the same thing happens thousands of times a day across America. How do I know that? Because the video evidence is recent in police history and video evidence is usually covered up; and the prosecution agrees on some sort of a deal.
The starting point is to change the objective for the entire system: It must be to have the minimal necessary number of people convicted while maintaining safety.
When Sandra Bland had the courage to stand up against the bully of a police officer; the police officer just made her a criminal by taunting her to resist an arrest. If everything had gone normal: The crime statistics would say that a violent offender was arrested and the police office gets a bonus for great work. You can be sure that the same thing happens thousands of times a day across America. How do I know that? Because the video evidence is recent in police history and video evidence is usually covered up; and the prosecution agrees on some sort of a deal.
9
'We have 5-10 times more criminals and incarcerated people in the US than in western civilized countries.'
It does not necessarily follow that we fabricate evidence and incarcerate too long. It *may* follow. But not necessarily.
First, you dismiss too readily the proposition that compared to many other nations, we have greater cultural diversity and a greater emphasis on individualism as opposed to conformity to cultural norms. If more people are locked up for low-level crimes here, perhaps in some other nations people do not presume themselves entitled to commit such offences.
It is also possible that some actions defined as crimes here are legal elsewhere. In some countries the notion of cruelty to animals doesn't exist, and you may beat your child or rape your wife with impunity. In some countries - even some of the same ones - justice is crowdsourced - e.g.. having done their own investigation, the locals mete out rough justice to those presumed guilty of blasphemy or witchcraft.
With regard to video evidence, while it's helpful it may not be dispositive. People see what they want or expect to see.
Our system needs work, but frankly you go off the deep end, perhaps from watching too many TV dramas and movies that promulgate the memes that inform your post.
It does not necessarily follow that we fabricate evidence and incarcerate too long. It *may* follow. But not necessarily.
First, you dismiss too readily the proposition that compared to many other nations, we have greater cultural diversity and a greater emphasis on individualism as opposed to conformity to cultural norms. If more people are locked up for low-level crimes here, perhaps in some other nations people do not presume themselves entitled to commit such offences.
It is also possible that some actions defined as crimes here are legal elsewhere. In some countries the notion of cruelty to animals doesn't exist, and you may beat your child or rape your wife with impunity. In some countries - even some of the same ones - justice is crowdsourced - e.g.. having done their own investigation, the locals mete out rough justice to those presumed guilty of blasphemy or witchcraft.
With regard to video evidence, while it's helpful it may not be dispositive. People see what they want or expect to see.
Our system needs work, but frankly you go off the deep end, perhaps from watching too many TV dramas and movies that promulgate the memes that inform your post.
1
The answer to all this hoopla is: Avery had competent lawyers, who made sound tactical decisions in presenting their case. That film makers (and their viewers) question these decisions is not unusual; but the lawyers had the benefit of reviewing all the evidence, and they had their client as a resource as well. Their judgment concerning the presentation of their case is what our system is all about. The fact they lost does not mean these tactical judgments were wrong or that their client was not guilty. This "documentary" provided a selective presentation of the evidence thought most important in supporting the jury's finding of guilt. The film makers are in the same league as others, such as "birthers" Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists who attempt to create a version of "truth" that omits key facts. All of the evidence, woven into a presentation is what the lawyers did at trial. The jury heard all the evidence during a six week trial. The filmmakers have added presented facts that were not evidence, and arguments that a lawyer is not free to make. All lawyers know a defendant is tried on admissible evidence and that argument is not evidence. Police misconduct somehow tainted the evidence? All of that was aired out at the time of the trial. It is disingenuous to second guess competent lawyers who fleshed out the issues at trial. A juror swears to deliberate as part of a group. Recanting that judgment after being freed from the oath is disingenuous.
11
HOOPLAH is a terrific term for the film. Your notions about the police, the judges, and the jurors are unique and accurate. Evidence is evidence. The law is the law and your observation of the filmmakers 'presenting' facts that were not evidence is pertinent. The hysteria stirred up by the filmmakers to a not so observant public is reprehensible.
2
Honestly, I've seen "planetwest" comment so much on these stories that I'm starting to suspect he may be the real killer.
Again, neither of you has watched the documentary so you cannot comment. Just because a jury voted to convict doesn't mean the process was fair (because that jury was obviously tainted by the prior Trial by Press by DA Kratz) or that the jury vote was right. That's why jury verdicts are overturned on appeal - all. the. time.
Similarly, just because state courts upheld the jury verdict on appeal does not mean that the outcome was just or correct. The legal system is designed to uphold convictions.
The documentary is a critique of this system - you cannot refer to the results of that system as validation of its process.
Again, neither of you has watched the documentary so you cannot comment. Just because a jury voted to convict doesn't mean the process was fair (because that jury was obviously tainted by the prior Trial by Press by DA Kratz) or that the jury vote was right. That's why jury verdicts are overturned on appeal - all. the. time.
Similarly, just because state courts upheld the jury verdict on appeal does not mean that the outcome was just or correct. The legal system is designed to uphold convictions.
The documentary is a critique of this system - you cannot refer to the results of that system as validation of its process.
1
It does not appear that either the Halbachs or the Averys were particularly well served by police and prosecutors in this case. Whether or not Steven Avery was involved, we still do not know exactly what happened to Teresa Halbach, and that story matters as much as investigative and judicial procedure matters. The story presented at these trials did not comport with physical evidence, and was hastily cobbled together by a team less concerned with finding Ms Halbach's killer than with derailing Steven Avery's potentially ruinous lawsuit. It is discouraging to learn from this op-ed that this kind of hackwork is so common in criminal investigations.
73
Watching "making a Murder" I realized that while Steve A was picked out for the crime because a relative of a police member didn't like him. After having been released, Steve A was going to sue the county for false imprisonment, which if he won, would cost the county more money than they were worth. This set up a situation where the law had to find a way to put Steve back in prison because it was easier to ruin a man's life than to do things right the first time. That their governor has stated he has chosen not to look into the problem scares me as much as how poorly the police did their job.
24
I wonder how outraged and sympathetic the hundreds of thousands of Avery supporters would be if Mr. Avery were Black, Hispanic or Muslim?
1
I knew it was a matter of time before someone would try to make this about race.
And I don't think there would be any difference. Regardless of race, the American viewing public has never before had such an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at the goings-on of a "run-of-the-mill" murder investigation before, from the defendant's perspective. That's what makes this unique and eye-opening. Not the accused's race.
And I don't think there would be any difference. Regardless of race, the American viewing public has never before had such an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at the goings-on of a "run-of-the-mill" murder investigation before, from the defendant's perspective. That's what makes this unique and eye-opening. Not the accused's race.
2
Adnan Syed, the subject of the Serial podcast, has millions of supporters. He is a Muslim American.
5
That's an interesting thought. (Not Mark) From what I've read about the show and the crime, I'm inclined to view him as guilty. That may be because I've a deep distrust of media, you have no idea what they left out or edited a certain way, etc.
As I know personally there is no substitute for the right to polygraph tests in public for those accused and tortured. Moreover, many frame ups use "Confidential Informants": reform must include publicly disclosing "confidential informants" and making them available for cross-examination.
3
Polygraphs are junk science. This is why they aren't admissible as evidence. And your advocacy of them is just one more example of why 'crowdsourcing' criminal justice through popular media such as 'Making a Murderer' is not a good idea.
8
Terry,
As ACW points out, the results of polygraph tests are inadmissible in every court of law that I am aware of.
Reason: they have absolutely no scientific validity.
The carry as much weight as a OUIJA board.
Time to re-think what 'you know personally'.
As ACW points out, the results of polygraph tests are inadmissible in every court of law that I am aware of.
Reason: they have absolutely no scientific validity.
The carry as much weight as a OUIJA board.
Time to re-think what 'you know personally'.
3
Our legal lexicon would be a good place to start: nix "Innocent until proven guilty" in favor of "Innocent unless proven guilty."
8
I really cannot see how anyone could conclude that Steven Avery was guilty of this second murder he's serving time for.
6
Your viewpoint makes sense if you're sole source of information is a tv show.
7
OK, Steevo Dude: Walk us through how our reasonable impressions are completely off-base, how the facts were completely misrepresented by the filmmakers, and how you conclude that Avery's and his nephew's convictions were justified and unimpeachable. Especially the nephew's. Or are you telling us that the justice system in this country, even when correct according to procedure, never convicts the innocent?
2
I will forever be haunted by the still camera shots of Steven Avery's mother as she endures the travesty of this "investigation". Her worn and anxiety-ridden appearance speaks volumes for any person sloshing through the quagmire that is our current criminal justice system.
You don't have to know, agree with or be told the outcome of this or many other legal proceedings to witness their limitations, bias or malice of forethought. We should always be seeking to increase the "fairness" quotient in our system at every opportunity.
You don't have to know, agree with or be told the outcome of this or many other legal proceedings to witness their limitations, bias or malice of forethought. We should always be seeking to increase the "fairness" quotient in our system at every opportunity.
6
We seem to have developed a strong sense that belief trumps all, that belief comes prior to facts, or experience, and tells us which facts are valid and which to ignore. To some extent this is necessary just to process the complicated, stimulating world we encounter, but it's gone too far.
Many argue, for example, that religious belief--faith--should allow us to do things that would otherwise be illegal. In fact, our secular society is arranged to allow for competing religions to co-exist precisely by NOT adjudicating competing religious claims. If we as a society have decided not to discriminate against those of us who are gay, why should a religious belief allow some of us to do so--any more than it would allow us to sacrifice a virgin?
The prosecutor's statement cited here--“reasonable doubts are for innocent people"--makes the same move: we don't apply the principal of reasonable doubt until after we have decided guilt of innocence. A similar statement was made in the Dassey trial. But reasonable doubt is the very thing that allows us to be as sure as we can be that a person is actually guilty. Belief comes AFTER not before we have applied reasonable doubt. It's a plea, really, to humility, which this prosecutor felt free to tell the jury to ignore. After he said this, my wife and I just looked at each other in dumb amazement. It's a perfect microcosm of one thing that's gone deeply wrong with our society.
Many argue, for example, that religious belief--faith--should allow us to do things that would otherwise be illegal. In fact, our secular society is arranged to allow for competing religions to co-exist precisely by NOT adjudicating competing religious claims. If we as a society have decided not to discriminate against those of us who are gay, why should a religious belief allow some of us to do so--any more than it would allow us to sacrifice a virgin?
The prosecutor's statement cited here--“reasonable doubts are for innocent people"--makes the same move: we don't apply the principal of reasonable doubt until after we have decided guilt of innocence. A similar statement was made in the Dassey trial. But reasonable doubt is the very thing that allows us to be as sure as we can be that a person is actually guilty. Belief comes AFTER not before we have applied reasonable doubt. It's a plea, really, to humility, which this prosecutor felt free to tell the jury to ignore. After he said this, my wife and I just looked at each other in dumb amazement. It's a perfect microcosm of one thing that's gone deeply wrong with our society.
14
Watching "Making a Murderer" was indeed chilling. One learns to appreciate the possibility of miscarriage of justice, flawed forensics, skewed testimony, court-appointed defense attorney and prosecutorial malfeasance, and other horrifying elements in our criminal justice system. We think we have a fine system, but the egregious flaws (and self-serving agendas of some prosecutors) become evident in this series, and one dreads the possibility of ever being accused of a serious crime. The documentary also serves to point out the fact that LIFE and our criminal justice system are often flawed, unfair, and replete with loose ends and unanswered questions.
7
You know, sometimes the truth is hard to get. The techniques used to extract the confusion from Brendan Dassey were probably compromised but in the end he confessed in details that would hardley come from his limited imagination and he later confessed to his mother in a phone call. The filmmakers painted a dishonest picture showing photographs of him in an 'innocent' childhood who listening to is testimony. Steven's previous criminal record was ignored as well suiting the filmmaker's needs. The prosecution's attempt at accusing the police for complicity was desperate and ridiculous. The apologists that the filmmakers used were one sided as well. None of the jurors were interviewed. The evidence against the two is overwhelming but the story the filmmakers created is more interesting because there is no story if they are guilty. The film would not pass muster in any film class, the manipulation in the film is so obvious yet the film has reached its gullible audience. Pathetic.
9
Name one detail that Dassey confessed to that wasn't fed to him and that is corroborated by any physical evidence?
The filmmakers covered Avery's prior criminal record. Some have made a big stink about the animal cruelty bit - but fail to mention that the whole "doused in gasoline" is not in the criminal complaint, and also fail to mention that Avery pled "No Contest" to those charges. He was 20, drunk and horsing around. He's not a nice guy, and his actions were deplorable, but you can't convict an innocent man of murder and sentence him to life because 30 years ago he did a bad thing that he served time for.
Answer one question planet west: where on the Avery compound did the murder take place?
The filmmakers covered Avery's prior criminal record. Some have made a big stink about the animal cruelty bit - but fail to mention that the whole "doused in gasoline" is not in the criminal complaint, and also fail to mention that Avery pled "No Contest" to those charges. He was 20, drunk and horsing around. He's not a nice guy, and his actions were deplorable, but you can't convict an innocent man of murder and sentence him to life because 30 years ago he did a bad thing that he served time for.
Answer one question planet west: where on the Avery compound did the murder take place?
1
This article makes it sound like our justice system needs to be tweaked a bit here and there, like "more disclosure of potentially exculpatory information to the defense" (as required by Brady). But, if you read "Licensed to Lie" by Sidney Powell, about how the DOJ worked overtime to destroy Sen. Ted Stevens, who was eventually exonerated and the lead prosecutor later committed suicide when he became the focus of an investigation, and then how it destroyed Arthur Anderson (accountants) and then destroyed the lives of Merrill officials (most of the book is about one of them, Jim Brown) you realize just how skewed our justice system is, from top to bottom. How many people plead out even when innocent to avoid draconian sentences? I believe quite a large number. Look at Orange County, CA where " Judge Thomas M. Goethals recused the entire office of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas from a murder case “because of repeated government cheating.” "(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/13/the-jaw-drop... and you start to get a feeling of just how rotten the system is. These are exceptions. Mostly, the DAs have the cops' backs and judges have the DAs backs. I doubt this mess will be fixed or even improved. Too much money is tied up, too much incentive to cut corners and lie and no consequences for that.
4
I was so angry after watching them browbeat that poor kid into a false confession that I had to stop watching.Even his own lawyer!!! I was sure they'd be let go, but already knew the outcome, so I knew there would be no " up side" to this story. Absolutely despicable behavior on those that are supposed to " protect and serve".
50
I don't get Netflix, so all I know of this series is what I've read. My problem here, though, is that encouraging 'armchair detectives' scares the heck out of me.
We have seen 'crowdsourcing' in forensics and criminal justice before. Often.
'Crowdsourced' criminal justice gave us 'verdicts' in the Leo Frank and Emmett Till cases, among many others. And that was *before* the Internet, which makes the proliferation of idiocy easier by orders of magnitude. 'Crowdsourced' forensics have given us entire cottage industries built on explanations of how the WTC towers were brought down by internal explosions and the 'planes' were holograms, or that everyone *except* Oswald shot JFK, or that Obama is a space lizard in cahoots with the Illuminati.
It's an old truism that 'justice' and 'law' are not synonymous. The same could be said for 'justice' and 'truth'. But as the old saying goes, 'the masses are asses' and crowdsourced criminal justice is something we should be trying to get away from. Jessica Fletcher and her amateur ilk should stay in fictional TV where they belong.
Perry Mason had only one guilty client in the whole run. OTOH the original 'Law and Order showed plenty of screw-ups by both cops and prosecutors. Episodes sometimes ended with the words 'the jury's come back' - verdict not revealed; or heading to appeal; or with a clearly guilty perp waltzing out either having won in court or with insufficient evidence.
We have seen 'crowdsourcing' in forensics and criminal justice before. Often.
'Crowdsourced' criminal justice gave us 'verdicts' in the Leo Frank and Emmett Till cases, among many others. And that was *before* the Internet, which makes the proliferation of idiocy easier by orders of magnitude. 'Crowdsourced' forensics have given us entire cottage industries built on explanations of how the WTC towers were brought down by internal explosions and the 'planes' were holograms, or that everyone *except* Oswald shot JFK, or that Obama is a space lizard in cahoots with the Illuminati.
It's an old truism that 'justice' and 'law' are not synonymous. The same could be said for 'justice' and 'truth'. But as the old saying goes, 'the masses are asses' and crowdsourced criminal justice is something we should be trying to get away from. Jessica Fletcher and her amateur ilk should stay in fictional TV where they belong.
Perry Mason had only one guilty client in the whole run. OTOH the original 'Law and Order showed plenty of screw-ups by both cops and prosecutors. Episodes sometimes ended with the words 'the jury's come back' - verdict not revealed; or heading to appeal; or with a clearly guilty perp waltzing out either having won in court or with insufficient evidence.
19
Watch the confession of Brendan Dassey and then you'll see why so many people are outraged. You don't need a Netflix account.
Here's a short portion of the interview which was in the documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhV6b0Fyd4
Here's the full 3-part 4 hour version without commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYOaIDxirHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJt6j5E1y_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Y_CCkMv3Q
Here's a short portion of the interview which was in the documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhV6b0Fyd4
Here's the full 3-part 4 hour version without commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYOaIDxirHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJt6j5E1y_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Y_CCkMv3Q
1
Its not crowdsourced. Its 10 episodes put together by two doc makers using public evidence. Maybe you should watch the series.
The British (including Canada, Australia, New Zealand) justice system seem to be of higher procedural quality than our own and the Scottish 'not proven' verdict besides the 'guilty' or 'not guilty' is a sensible alternative.
But as a society they also have per capita much less criminalization (particularly capital crimes) than does the more violent and law scoffing United States.
But as a society they also have per capita much less criminalization (particularly capital crimes) than does the more violent and law scoffing United States.
12
Not so. They have as much violent crime and maybe even more. Look it up.
It seemed to me that Making a Murderer is as much about prosecutorial and police misconduct as it was about being unintelligent. Many of the actions and statements made by the family of the accused and the accused themselves were foolish and unwise in today's world. Apparently it is a crime to be stupid.
8
There is a reason we have more citizens in cages than any other, not to mention more bombs and guns. Hate and fear trump love where is little outlet for healthy emotion in our consumerist culture.
14
I agree the moment for reform is ripe. Social media and now Netflix is publicising the wrongful convictions that the appeal courts and mainstream media have not recognised. I believe Social Media is an efficient filter for identifying wrongful convictions, apparently more objective and effective than clumsy appeal courts that look more for procedural error than whether guilty was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe this particular murder was committed by a serial killer not mentioned in the documentary, although he is I believe seen in episode 6 in a court building - Edward Wayne Edwards.
I believe this particular murder was committed by a serial killer not mentioned in the documentary, although he is I believe seen in episode 6 in a court building - Edward Wayne Edwards.
4
The serious flaws in our criminal justice system make it all the more important to prevent the continued building of a surveillance state.
3
Documentaries often do not lead to "truth." Producers and directors frequently have a point they wish to make, and can do so effectively because their presentation may feature but one side of the issue. I do not accuse the producers of Making a Murderer of this, but it's worth keeping in mind on the question of Steven Avery's guilt.
But it is beyond debate that the conduct of the police in making this case was shameful and perhaps borderline illegal. Watching the suggestive interrogation of a 16 yr. old boy with an I.Q. of 73 made me want to jump into the screen and holler "stop!" And the child's lawyer? His conduct was beyond the pale. His performance, and that of his investigator, unquestionably supplied key evidence to convict their own client. Their conduct was, at the minimum, gross incompetence, and possibly much worse than that. In five years as the head of the court-appointed lawyer's disciplinary committee covering 40,000 lawyers in Manhattan and the Bronx, I had not seen anything close to it. Hard to imagine a clearer case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The phrase "legal ethics" is not an oxymoron. Does Wisconsin have a lawyer's ethics board?
But it is beyond debate that the conduct of the police in making this case was shameful and perhaps borderline illegal. Watching the suggestive interrogation of a 16 yr. old boy with an I.Q. of 73 made me want to jump into the screen and holler "stop!" And the child's lawyer? His conduct was beyond the pale. His performance, and that of his investigator, unquestionably supplied key evidence to convict their own client. Their conduct was, at the minimum, gross incompetence, and possibly much worse than that. In five years as the head of the court-appointed lawyer's disciplinary committee covering 40,000 lawyers in Manhattan and the Bronx, I had not seen anything close to it. Hard to imagine a clearer case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The phrase "legal ethics" is not an oxymoron. Does Wisconsin have a lawyer's ethics board?
40
Why not just make DNA evidence examination mandatory and quick? It would settle a lot of doubts and make the whole shebang more honest?
4
Not in Making of a Murderer. The DNA evidence was totally suspect. it made us realize that anything could be tainted.
BT,
The answer to your question is that
DNA testing is expensive.
This is why there are literally tens of thousands of untested DNA samples from rape cases collecting dust in police evidence rooms.
The answer to your question is that
DNA testing is expensive.
This is why there are literally tens of thousands of untested DNA samples from rape cases collecting dust in police evidence rooms.
1
Prosecutors want to punish. Unfortunately they don't necessarily care if the person they are punishing is actually guilty. It's human nature to want to "win" and to find it hard to admit that you are wrong. Prosecutors have this flaw in spades. If evidence is uncovered that doesn't fit the story they are telling to win their case, they cover it up. And because that's human nature, and would be very difficult to change, we need to change the system. Restorative justice is one option. Let the punishment fit the crime, ensure that the victims are actually helped in some way, either via apology, amends, community service, financial support. It is rare to see a victim after a court case less angry, less traumatized. But if the guilty party apologizes, makes amends to the community, does good works, faces what they did by paying back and making real reparations, everyone wins Take, for example, an insider trader. Make him teach math to inner city kids for four years. The whole system as it stands rewards convictions, even erroneous ones, does nothing for victims and the communities that are harmed by the crime, and doesn't reform the people who engage in criminal acts. Let's start by making all of those brilliant bankers who destroyed our economy do the community service of figuring out how to change our broken criminal justice system. That would be something.
90
I agree, SAS - let's go after the bankers. And, while we're at it, let's go over the pharmaceutical industry executives who knowingly hide the lethal side effects of their products for the sake of sales. As things now stand, the large fines given to them by the U.S. Department of Justice (for civil and criminal acts) do nothing but put a little dent in their profits, and the behavior doesn't change. Prosecuting the individual executives who made the decisions that result in the death of innocent victims would.
At least in the criminal justice system both sides get to present their cases. And there is a process which tries to ensure that happens.
The presenters/producers of these reality shows have the luxury of being able to present a finely developed case in the most favorable way possible to their predetermined conclusion. There is no process to ensure that "inconvenient" information is presented in a "balanced" or fair way. There is no cross-examination, there is no judge, and there is no court of appeals.
Not having seen this documentary, I'd like to know. What is their theory of who brutally murdered Teresa Halbach?
The presenters/producers of these reality shows have the luxury of being able to present a finely developed case in the most favorable way possible to their predetermined conclusion. There is no process to ensure that "inconvenient" information is presented in a "balanced" or fair way. There is no cross-examination, there is no judge, and there is no court of appeals.
Not having seen this documentary, I'd like to know. What is their theory of who brutally murdered Teresa Halbach?
8
Sounds like you agree Avery should get a new trial then.
Nobody knows who killed Teresa. That doesn't mean Avery did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question for the apologists for the State: where on the Avery compound was Teresa killed? If in the trailer or garage, where's the blood evidence? If somewhere else... how did the magic DNA bullet find itself in a crack in Avery's garage?
The only rational explanation is: Avery is guilty, but the police framed a guilty man.
Even if that is correct - which, mind you, takes a lot of speculation because if the police committed one act to frame Avery, they likely committed the others - it shows why the investigation, trial and conviction of Avery was unfair.
Nobody knows who killed Teresa. That doesn't mean Avery did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question for the apologists for the State: where on the Avery compound was Teresa killed? If in the trailer or garage, where's the blood evidence? If somewhere else... how did the magic DNA bullet find itself in a crack in Avery's garage?
The only rational explanation is: Avery is guilty, but the police framed a guilty man.
Even if that is correct - which, mind you, takes a lot of speculation because if the police committed one act to frame Avery, they likely committed the others - it shows why the investigation, trial and conviction of Avery was unfair.
1
I have not read the trial transcript, so I do not know all of the facts. Obviously the cops screwed up. But, the defendant had tortured and burned a cat in that same fire pit. Serial murderers often torture animals. And the defendant, during his first incarceration, told another inmate that he wanted to build a torture chamber to rape and torture women. The defendant also had a history of behavior towards women that indicated hatred towards women. While I believe he is guilty despite all the mistakes and misbehavior by the cops, I think the cops should be punished for their behavior. No one cares about the victim. The killer should be in prison, and I think the right guy is.
12
I just finished watching Episodes 3 and 4 of Making a Murderer. If anyone thinks that justice is served by having powerful grown men with an agenda browbeat a 16 year-old special education student until he says what they want him to say and signs a "confession" they can use against his uncle, then we are all in real trouble. I found it painful to watch and infuriating to contemplate just exactly how stacked the deck is in favor of law enforcement. The show is compelling. I just hope that it makes us angry enough that we get out of our lounge chairs and do something about it.
128
W, a lot of citizens feel the same way about dealing with the IRS, EPA, HHS, et. al.
Netflix going after them, next? Doubtful -- that would be real work.
Netflix going after them, next? Doubtful -- that would be real work.
2
If there are people who can actually do something about this, but prefer to stay in their lounge chairs, I'm okay with that.
"As listeners and viewers consume these stories, they are reminded of the humanity of the individuals involved — and they learn to see the defendants as more than abstractions."
I've not seen the show, but am aware of the petitions to free these individuals. These petitions imply that simply from watching the show thousands of Americans have decided that the accused are innocent. What I wonder is whether the humanity of the victim is also kept front and center. Is there his/her back story, relationships, and life enough that the audience experiences her as a living human being? Often in crime shows the victim becomes the bloody corpse - surreal at best.
I think that we imprison too readily; that we do not rehabilitate nearly enough; and that for people of color the 'justice' system often is far from just. I am appalled when someone is shown to have been wrongly convicted. Still, though it all we must hold the victim front and center - or else that person receives no justice at all.
I've not seen the show, but am aware of the petitions to free these individuals. These petitions imply that simply from watching the show thousands of Americans have decided that the accused are innocent. What I wonder is whether the humanity of the victim is also kept front and center. Is there his/her back story, relationships, and life enough that the audience experiences her as a living human being? Often in crime shows the victim becomes the bloody corpse - surreal at best.
I think that we imprison too readily; that we do not rehabilitate nearly enough; and that for people of color the 'justice' system often is far from just. I am appalled when someone is shown to have been wrongly convicted. Still, though it all we must hold the victim front and center - or else that person receives no justice at all.
64
"These petitions imply that simply from watching the show thousands of Americans have decided that the accused are innocent."
I think that this misses the point of both the article and the documentary entirely. Rather than presume guilt or innocence, these petitions represent the idea that these men were not granted due process of law. Prosecutors and law enforcement unilaterally presumed guilt, as evidenced by comments like "reasonable doubts are for innocent people". Media like "Serial" and "Making a Murderer" are showing us that the idea that an individual is innocent until proven guilty is no longer the view of law enforcement and prosecutors in many places.
I think that this misses the point of both the article and the documentary entirely. Rather than presume guilt or innocence, these petitions represent the idea that these men were not granted due process of law. Prosecutors and law enforcement unilaterally presumed guilt, as evidenced by comments like "reasonable doubts are for innocent people". Media like "Serial" and "Making a Murderer" are showing us that the idea that an individual is innocent until proven guilty is no longer the view of law enforcement and prosecutors in many places.
24
I think it would be useful for you to take a look at the series. The accused was incarcerated for 18 years prior to this incident on a sexual assault charge because there was a rush to convict based on putting the victim (a prominent and well situated woman) front and center.
During the murder trial which constitutes the second part of the series, the murder victim was frequently invoked and her family, and even her own videos of herself in which she talked about her life and aspirations, were presented. One doesn't get the feeling that the victim was forgotten, rather that there might have been a motive for convicting someone who was suing the county for millions of dollars for a previous wrongful imprisonment.
It is very difficult to glean the truth from watching the episodes, but one thing is clear...no victim is honored or avenged if the wrong perpetrator is convicted. And that wrongful conviction, particularly if it overlooks other suspects, can lead to greater tragedy in the future.
During the murder trial which constitutes the second part of the series, the murder victim was frequently invoked and her family, and even her own videos of herself in which she talked about her life and aspirations, were presented. One doesn't get the feeling that the victim was forgotten, rather that there might have been a motive for convicting someone who was suing the county for millions of dollars for a previous wrongful imprisonment.
It is very difficult to glean the truth from watching the episodes, but one thing is clear...no victim is honored or avenged if the wrong perpetrator is convicted. And that wrongful conviction, particularly if it overlooks other suspects, can lead to greater tragedy in the future.
137
The basic facts exposed documented in "Making a Murderer" show that both men were imprisoned despite the fact that "reasonable doubt" was rampant, along with outrageous coercion in the case of Dassey. Attention was paid to the murder victim, Theresa Halbach. More, or less, attention focused on her would not have taken away from the facts of the case, which should have brought "not guilty" verdicts in both instances.
6
I’d challenge the contention that what often happens that appears to some as police and prosecutorial abuse erodes the public’s trust. Surely, a white cop shooting an unarmed black kid does that, but that’s not the justice system – that’s often simply murder by cop.
What the public wishes is that the justice system protect them from the predations of hardened, violent criminals. What they see when they step back often is sloppiness in prosecutions that might prejudice a specific case but that nevertheless convicts and imprisons people with long histories of violence; and they agree with the system’s emphasis on doing just that. This doesn’t erode public trust in the system, it enhances it.
The argument the author really offers is that it’s wrong to do this; that people should be punished only for crimes they’re properly convicted of committing; that the gathering and presentation of evidence of such specific wrongs shouldn’t be tainted by police and prosecutorial misconduct; and that to do otherwise threatens every one of us by giving excessive power to a state that acts capriciously in depriving citizens of their freedom.
Yet most people don’t feel threatened by general dragnets seeking to cage people who make their livings by holding up gas stations or bodegas with guns, because they don’t. They want the people who do behind bars. Right or wrong, they’re less concerned about how many eggs need to be broken to do that. I’m afraid I don’t see a moment “ripe for reform”.
What the public wishes is that the justice system protect them from the predations of hardened, violent criminals. What they see when they step back often is sloppiness in prosecutions that might prejudice a specific case but that nevertheless convicts and imprisons people with long histories of violence; and they agree with the system’s emphasis on doing just that. This doesn’t erode public trust in the system, it enhances it.
The argument the author really offers is that it’s wrong to do this; that people should be punished only for crimes they’re properly convicted of committing; that the gathering and presentation of evidence of such specific wrongs shouldn’t be tainted by police and prosecutorial misconduct; and that to do otherwise threatens every one of us by giving excessive power to a state that acts capriciously in depriving citizens of their freedom.
Yet most people don’t feel threatened by general dragnets seeking to cage people who make their livings by holding up gas stations or bodegas with guns, because they don’t. They want the people who do behind bars. Right or wrong, they’re less concerned about how many eggs need to be broken to do that. I’m afraid I don’t see a moment “ripe for reform”.
6
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this argument that fundamentally reduces to 'the ends justify the means'.
A judicial system that 'gets it right' despite lapses in procedure, violations of rights, sloppy evidence, or simply by accident is a system to be feared. The political whims of a new master can easily pervert that system to create evidence to support any accusation. But the key to justice is not the accusation but the objective and untarnished proof of guilt. Assertion of guilt is just a subjective fiction convenient to a prosecutor.
I do live in fear of the "general dragnet" because I've seen the militarization of our police and finality of their actions ("You can't raise a Cain back up when he's in defeat"). I've seen how hard we've become in treating juvenile behavior - what was once a bother is now a criminal record. I've also seen how capricious justice has become. More and more it is a luxuery for the rich, the white, and the privileged. So, yes, I'm afraid that through some random acts I will be falsely accused by a system that cannot guaratee me justice.
We'd all like the guilty to be punished for their crimes, but it is far worse to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free. This nation's credo and its daily prayer seeks 'justice for all'. To argue against that is to argue against our nation.
A judicial system that 'gets it right' despite lapses in procedure, violations of rights, sloppy evidence, or simply by accident is a system to be feared. The political whims of a new master can easily pervert that system to create evidence to support any accusation. But the key to justice is not the accusation but the objective and untarnished proof of guilt. Assertion of guilt is just a subjective fiction convenient to a prosecutor.
I do live in fear of the "general dragnet" because I've seen the militarization of our police and finality of their actions ("You can't raise a Cain back up when he's in defeat"). I've seen how hard we've become in treating juvenile behavior - what was once a bother is now a criminal record. I've also seen how capricious justice has become. More and more it is a luxuery for the rich, the white, and the privileged. So, yes, I'm afraid that through some random acts I will be falsely accused by a system that cannot guaratee me justice.
We'd all like the guilty to be punished for their crimes, but it is far worse to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free. This nation's credo and its daily prayer seeks 'justice for all'. To argue against that is to argue against our nation.
33
'Assertion of guilt is just a subjective fiction convenient to a prosecutor.'
And assertion of innocence can be a subjective fiction even more convenient to a maker of movies and TV shows. I would beware of compelling narrative lines, whether 'poor innocent lamb ensnared in coils of justice system, until intrepid filmmakers gallop over hill to rescue' or 'evil predator stalks citizens, until brave cops and dedicated prosecutors make the streets safe again for decent people'. Reality is like an unlicked bear cub, and we slurp it into shape according to simplified templates. (One example: several comments focus on the suspect's low IQ, as if that rendered him an innocent child. Though it is true the mentally handicapped are often put through the grinder in the criminal justice system because they lack the ability to understand and respond to the process, and that they are more likely to be victims than perpetrators, to assume they are necessarily incapable of the crime itself is a bridge too far. Perhaps not *legally* responsible, but the capacity to comprehend is variable, and individual A with an IQ of 75 may be capable of deliberate cruelty and evil, and can understand sufficiently the difference between right and wrong, while individual B, with the same IQ score, is not.)
And assertion of innocence can be a subjective fiction even more convenient to a maker of movies and TV shows. I would beware of compelling narrative lines, whether 'poor innocent lamb ensnared in coils of justice system, until intrepid filmmakers gallop over hill to rescue' or 'evil predator stalks citizens, until brave cops and dedicated prosecutors make the streets safe again for decent people'. Reality is like an unlicked bear cub, and we slurp it into shape according to simplified templates. (One example: several comments focus on the suspect's low IQ, as if that rendered him an innocent child. Though it is true the mentally handicapped are often put through the grinder in the criminal justice system because they lack the ability to understand and respond to the process, and that they are more likely to be victims than perpetrators, to assume they are necessarily incapable of the crime itself is a bridge too far. Perhaps not *legally* responsible, but the capacity to comprehend is variable, and individual A with an IQ of 75 may be capable of deliberate cruelty and evil, and can understand sufficiently the difference between right and wrong, while individual B, with the same IQ score, is not.)
Just because you are okay with corruption in the criminal justice system, as long as people you don't like are locked up, regardless of guilt or innocence, I don't think you can generalize to everyone.
Statistics show that crime is concentrated in males between approximately teenage years to twenties, so the low level crimes of which you speak would cease just in time for you to frame them for another crime. Accordingly, a future law abiding citizen who could be productive and contribute to society would be unable to do unfairly.
There is also the factor framing one person while the real criminal gets off with positive reinforcement for criminal acts. That contributes more to threats against citizens. How about focusing resources on fully and fairly prosecuting defendants, without prejudice?
Statistics show that crime is concentrated in males between approximately teenage years to twenties, so the low level crimes of which you speak would cease just in time for you to frame them for another crime. Accordingly, a future law abiding citizen who could be productive and contribute to society would be unable to do unfairly.
There is also the factor framing one person while the real criminal gets off with positive reinforcement for criminal acts. That contributes more to threats against citizens. How about focusing resources on fully and fairly prosecuting defendants, without prejudice?
4
'Making a Murderer,' no matter its popularity, isn't analogous to popular genre products cranked out endlessly by publishers like the Random House Group and all TV broadcasters. The two women who worked on 'Making a Murderer' for ten years have delivered a reality-based documentary, reportage of the highest quality, not some cooked-up product from TV & hack book writers & marketers & advertisers. That's why it works so well, it's real, it exposes the US criminal justice system as, yes, criminal, hardly just, and highly dysfunctional. These documentary creators should be praised as being light years above & beyond corporate publishers & TV producers of popular product.
113
That two people worked many years on this project does not assure me of it's worth or veracity. The criminal justice system is brutal. Any of us with empathy and concerns for social justice can't not see that brutality, and can't not want reform. But any two filmmakers with several years to make a go of it fashion a documentary that tugs at our heart strings and makes some of us ready to set a person free. The crazies on reddit identified the wrong people as guilty of the Boston Bombing so their efforts to armchair this case is of little use to us, right? The jails of America are filled with people who somehow seduce some of us into writing love letters and marriages with lifers. We should remember that when we binge watch this passion project and find ourselves wanting to believe the guy is innocent: the project is designed to elicit that response and could hardly end with the idea that a sometimes brutal criminal justice system got the verdict right.
Yes the system is ripe for criticism and ripe for reform. Does that make Avery innocent?
I was on a jury a three years back that found a man not guilty of a gang shooting: the police and the prosecutor just did not have the evidence to sway me to believe he was guilty and I lobbied the other jurors hard to convince them. I stay up some nights questioning that decision. He was a gang member with many convictions. Would I voice some of those doubts if a film-maker came around now to study the case. Yes. Did I err? No.
Yes the system is ripe for criticism and ripe for reform. Does that make Avery innocent?
I was on a jury a three years back that found a man not guilty of a gang shooting: the police and the prosecutor just did not have the evidence to sway me to believe he was guilty and I lobbied the other jurors hard to convince them. I stay up some nights questioning that decision. He was a gang member with many convictions. Would I voice some of those doubts if a film-maker came around now to study the case. Yes. Did I err? No.
7
Wrong for many reasons. By omitting facts presented at trial and failing to reveal their bias in putting together their "documentary," they are the same as other hacks who claim they are great sleuths. There is no story in reporting that Avery was convicted after being represented by competent lawyers.
What the documentarians have done is chip away at the circumstantial evidence that proved Avery's guilt by omitting a comprehensive presentation of both sides' cases. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The jury heard defense arguments that this circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict Avery and rejected them. That is one of the reasons they found him guilty.
What the documentarians have done is chip away at the circumstantial evidence that proved Avery's guilt by omitting a comprehensive presentation of both sides' cases. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The jury heard defense arguments that this circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict Avery and rejected them. That is one of the reasons they found him guilty.
3
I, too, served on a jury that found a young (not-too-bright) woman not guilty of murder. All 12 of us "thought" she was probably guilty, but there was enormous reasonable doubt, and we all agreed on that as well. A year or so later, the policeman who had interrogated her early in the investigation, despite seeming like a "good guy", was found to have abused and bullied other alleged perpetrators and lost his job. The defendant was incriminated in a different crime (not murder) a few years after that, and imprisoned. As messy as it was, the system worked.
18
True Justice is found in determining the truth. One without the other is hollow at best.
15
And the jury trial system is the best way to determine whether the defendant is guilty or "not guilty." A documentary is no substitute for a jury trial.
22
If the "jury trial system is the best way to determine whether the defendant is guilty or "not guilty"", then why is the outcome skewed to the rich and against the poor? And why are witness's identifications so highly regarded despite they have a poor track record?
1
Slight emendation on the quotes. The jury trial system may be the best way to determine whether the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty." In the light of the number of false convictions that have been revealed by scientific advances, a well-researched documentary, if unbiased and thoroughly researched, might be a better way to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.
The jury trial system is a game in which two sides compete to see who "wins". The prosecutor and defense lawyers are the players, the jury is the judging panel, the judge is the referee, and the defendant is the football. Win a conviction, win an acquittal, decide which side was more convincing, make sure the rules are followed! Most notably, there is nobody in this scenario whose assigned task is to determine the truth. That, it would seem, is the documentary's job.
The jury trial system is a game in which two sides compete to see who "wins". The prosecutor and defense lawyers are the players, the jury is the judging panel, the judge is the referee, and the defendant is the football. Win a conviction, win an acquittal, decide which side was more convincing, make sure the rules are followed! Most notably, there is nobody in this scenario whose assigned task is to determine the truth. That, it would seem, is the documentary's job.
1
"Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"
Apparently everybody except Edmund Wilson, this good dog and me.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/15/books/mysteries-join-the-mainstream.ht...
Apparently everybody except Edmund Wilson, this good dog and me.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/15/books/mysteries-join-the-mainstream.ht...
3
Do you care about justice in the real world?
1
I have reasonable doubt that the prosecutor learned much in law school.