True crime documentaries are a unique way to present information about real life criminal cases to audiences while at the same time educating and informing them about the implications of crime. That is what the average true crime genre fan might say. To this point, I call bullshit. True crime documentaries have nothing short of a biased, inaccurate reporting and presentation of facts in a way that reinforces the director’s personal agenda.
“True crime” is a misnomer because popularized true crime documentaries present a subjective, predilect perspective of the events in a way that is different from what actually happened. The entire true crime genre deals with violence, corruption, broken justice systems, abuse of authority, and a lack of definitive
…show more content…
It engages in underhanded tactics of generating audience sympathy and support for the criminals standing trial for the rape and murder of an innocent woman. Making a Murderer successfully executes its aim of generating sympathy and support for the Averys through its presentation of evidence and manipulation of interviews to make the Averys seem more relatable, all the while demonizing anyone who is not in their camp. Making a Murderer is extremely biased in favor of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, yet the show does not recognize these biases at any point throughout the series. Producers Demos and Ricciardi never explicitly offer insights on their pro-Avery perspective. Due to this absence of transparency and accountability on the part of the filmmakers, the narrative of Making a Murderer seems more stale and biased because the documentary only presents one side of the story. Additionally, the documentary constantly shows the consequences that the trial has on Steven Avery’s elderly parents Allan and Dolores by including clips of them solemnly going about their daily lives while grappling with the reality that their son is in prison. This defensive position which supports Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey is clearly conveyed despite the apparent lack of commentary by the filmmakers themselves. Although there is a lack of authorial presence in Making a Murderer, this does not necessarily denote narrative ambivalence or neutrality. (Bruzzi, 276) All of the tactics employed by Making a Murderer’s producers reinforce the program’s stance in favor of Steven
This movie really tied everything we’ve been discussing in class and seeing it unfold was actually really eye opening. I found it important going forward to make sure I do not fall into that tunnel vision mentality and to make sure I follow the evidence rather than fitting the suspect to the evidence. Again, I found it interesting like in the Norfolk Four case and in the Central Park 5 case police neglected to look at surrounding crime areas to see if any other cases matched the same modus operandi. If the police did look at surrounding cases they would have established a link between previous assaults and the assault that took place in the park that night. I was amazed how the detectives did not connect how each of the confessions varied by who did what and how they attacked the victim. It was Korey Wise in the video that kept putting up his hand when asked how big was the rock and he was just moving them back and forth. Police also neglected to look at the attack patterns of where the group first was hassling people in the park. They would have found that the boys were at one end of the park, while the victim was being attacked and there was no way they could have been in two places at once. I also found troubling during the time was the media portrayal of the Central Park 5, how they were painted as vicious young men, who brutally attacked a harmless white women. Even after each one of them was exonerated from the crime the media still portrayed them as vicious men. As we discussed in class, I think a lawyer like a magistrate should be available 24/7 when it comes to juveniles, because I believe that this five did not know their Miranda Rights and what they were entitled. If they knew what their rights were I believe the confessions never would have happened and none of them would have gone to
On December 18th 2015 Netflix aired with great popularity a 10 part documentary series called “making a Murderer” The documentary, written by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demo, present the case of Steven Avery; a convicted murderer exonerated on DNA evidence after serving 18 years for the assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. The writers present the series in a way that suggest that Avery was framed by the Manitowoc Country police department. and present that the police planted evidence to frame Steven Avery because he had been exonerated from the previous crime. The ethical problem with this as is presented by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker, is that the documentary argues their case so passionately that they leave out important
The eighth law that can cause a crime to be viewed as a capital crime is “the person murders an individual under six years of age.” (Pilgrim 06) Prolonged media attention reflecting cases on capital crimes committed by women, causes cases to have extreme bias, and causes the judge or jury to neglect the actual case. This is mirrored by the circumstances of the case involving the 2008 disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony the suspected killer which was the child’s own mother, Casey Marie Anthony. Casey Anthony, the mother of then three-year old daughter Caylee Anthony, was believed to have murdered her daughter in order to avoid parental responsibilities. Although an overwhelming amount of evidence backing up claims and beliefs that Casey Anthony was in fact the perpetrator of the murder, including forensic data connecting decomposition remains of the child to Anthony’s car during the time of the child’s disappearance, and FBI attained data comprising of Google search terms including methods involved in the murder of Caylee from a comp...
with news and debates about Steven Avery's innocents or guilt. Avery had more than just twenty minutes of fame, but a whole documentary series on Netflix called “How to Make a Murderer”. Avery was convicted for a sexual assault in 1985, but found wrongfully committed after serving 18 years in 2003. He was found innocent by DNA evidence discovered from another sexually assault case matching a man that looked similar to Avery.
The introduction of the victim’s family members feelings since the murder, characterization of the crime, and recommended sentence is, while respected and unfortunate, wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. This court has held that juries must reach their decision through careful consideration of the circumstances of the crime and the reputation and character of the defendant. Any other information is irrelevant and may divert the jury from its intended purpose. In addition, victim impact statements may lead to arbitrary and capricious sentencing because not all victims have family members willing or able to provide testimony in a clear manner and not all victims have the same level of social standing. We should not be determining if a defendant should live or die on these factors because it devalues the lives of some victims. These standards would lead to an inevitable trial on the character and reputation of the victim, an outcome that no party wants to see. Finally, defendants do not receive a fair chance for rebuttal, when victim impact states are presented, because it is not to the strategic advantage of the defendant. Any attempt to besmirch the reputation of the victim or question the emotions of surviving family members would be inconsiderate and hurt the defendant in the eyes of any jury. Victim impact statements serve no other purpose
Oliver Stone’s 1994 classic, Natural Born Killers, excited and traumatized its audiences while also causing controversy. The tale of white trash lovers caught up in a realm of chaos that includes a continuous murderous rampage from state to state, draws in audiences with its graphic violence and riveting pulse inducing music. Yet, the message of this film seems to be much deeper than just exposing audiences to yet another chaotic action movie filled with guns, blood and mayhem. Stone’s Natural Born Killers examines the subject of media’s investment in serial murder very thoroughly, and so it seems likely that it has the potential to offer a more rigorous interrogation of the nature of the American public’s fascination with the serial killer superstar (Schmid 123). Natural Born Killers is a film that exposes modern society’s obsession with serial killers and how the media aids in the glorifying of these notorious icons. The film also plays into the fact that society while finding murder repulsive are just as sick as the serial killers because the enjoy watching such films.
I watched the new HBO miniseries called: The Night Of. I chose to view this miniseries because it had a very interesting plot. One comparison between the court official I interviewed, this miniseries, and the textbook is that the court reporter handles real life court cases every day. The textbook is written off of real life events as well. The HBO miniseries is fictional even though it all looks very real.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Grisham tells us that two youngsters killed 2 unrelated people after they watched the film, Natural Born Killers, and learned the violent behavior showed in the film and commit crimes afterwards. And he comes to conclusion that this kind of violent movies that will cause bad effects among young people should be not allowed to made. The detail he provides is that nothing in the two perpetrator’s past indicated violent propensities. Stone’s essay is the response to Grisham’s indict. His central idea is that the movies should not be blamed as reasons people commit crime. The details he provides are that: There are many related factor involved if people are guilty, such as their upbringing, parents, schools, and peers, but not films; Teenagers spend more time on watching TV, which also include violent depictions and have effects on teenagers, so TV should have more responsibility on the crime than Natural Born Killers does.
For instance, at the beginning of this movie, 11 men except one believed that that the accused man was guilty just because he had killed his dad. But as they analyzed each evidence and each testimony, the jury started to believe that the accused man was innocent as there were many factors that did not fit in with what the witnesses had said during the trial. For example, in the movie the jury argued that the old man’s testimony was not very accurate with the time of the stabbing because it was impossible for him to get up from his bed to the front door of his apartment with in 15 seconds considering his age and health condition. They also question the distance at which the woman admits seeing the victim being stab by his son, as it was implied that she must have not been wearing her glasses by the time she witness the crime.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
While those who feel that Joe’s situation has a greater impact than Tom’s, the opposite opponent would have the same opinion that our murder rate needs to decrease. However, just because a person did not lay hands on the victim, it does not excuse them from the consequences. The benefit of the dilemma is that the news is open to the public and murderers are getting off of the streets and creating a more workable society. By this being said, it is a step closer to a safe rule-following
Media coverage of Ted Bundy’s escape from prison and first arrest allowed for him to be caught (Murderpedia)]. However, the media should know its boundaries when it comes to where they can report and where they can not. More often times than not, the media interferes with actual police investigations and make it more difficult to either catch the perpetrator or to go through the process of arresting them. In regards to serial killers and serial killer cases, it is common for the media to directly distract law enforcement so that they are unable to do their work properly. Media coverage of serial killers may instead, be motivation for them to commit their crimes in the first place- as they wish to be recognized. In addition, the fact that so many people will be exposed to this information allows for individuals to try and do drastic things such as emulating the crime, or being influenced to commit their own. The media may be motivation for serial killers to commit their crimes, and can act to be a disturbance during serial killer cases. Reporting of such cases can also influence audience members so that they may also be “inspire” to either commit copycat crimes or create work that embodies the act. This creation of a serial killer culture stems from the media reporting of serial killers in a way that may create sympathy or pity. By giving them exposure to the rest of
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.