“We can all say we’re never going to commit a crime, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be accused.” The trailer of Netflix’s series, Making a Murderer, begins with this statement. Before viewers have even begun watching the series, this quote prods them to go down a scary thought path. Where would you find the strength to stay hopeful while in jail? How would you prove your innocence? Would you succumb to the pressure of pleading guilty for the chance of early parole? The first seven seconds of the trailer captures the viewers’ attention, and from there they are hooked. Netflix creates the infamous good vs. evil scenario in this series. Steven Avery and his family are portrayed as the poor and innocent citizens, while the investigators and prosecutors …show more content…
Making a Murderer is a documentary-drama, like successful similar ones found on cable, including Dateline, 48 Hours Mysteries, and Cold Case Files. Many people are fascinated with authentic crime stories. However, unlike these other shows, Making a Murderer explores how the criminal justice system fails Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, instead of showing the prosecution, the defendant, and both of their witnesses’ sides of the story. By introducing the facts of the case and then showing only one viewpoint or side, Netflix prods viewers to feel sorry for one side and angry with the other. Whereas in other crime-dramas, mystery and suspense are what drive viewers to watch. In an interview discussing the popularity of Dateline with The New York Times, NBC News executive David Corvo says, “It’s got good guys, bad guys, conflict over something that matters, suspense and then resolution — the classic elements of drama and great storytelling.” In their improved crime docudrama model, Netflix removes the resolution and leaves viewers infuriated with the results of innocent men still in jail and hungry for more. Unfortunately, there is no more information after the 10 hour-long episodes. But unlike the shows on cable that have their ending where the truth is uncovered and justice is served, Making a Murderer viewers have the power to band together and demand of their government that the criminal …show more content…
The docudrama portrays Steven Avery as a man who has had trouble with law enforcement, but also a man police officers blame and target when something bad happens. It also portrays his family as upright, relatable people. The Avery’s run a family business, live near each other, and miss, visit and call one another often. The Avery’s have been torn apart, not once, but twice. Steven’s parents, who are his biggest familial supporters, are constantly interviewed to see how they are coping with their son and grandson in jail. While they remain hopeful most of the time, it is obvious that they are hurting, too. In episode 10, “Fighting for their Lives,” Allen Avery, Steven’s father, says the Wisconsin justice system, “ruined us. They ruined our business.” Steven’s mother, Dolores says, “This one is worse than the first one. There is no family here anymore.” The series shows the aging couple lives alone on their plot of land, heartbroken, but hopeful, just like any parent would be in their situation. Also in “Fighting for their Lives,” Avery’s attorney Dean Strang emotionally shares his devastation that Wisconsin has done this to Avery a second time by saying, “There’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again, for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life
La Donna Beaty clearly States in her argument, ?What Makes a Serial Killer?? her opinion and different theories on what causes a human being to become a serial killer. Beaty states that there are many serial killers and victims of them, but she is unsure about what causes a person to become a serial killer. Furthermore, she asked many questions, but there was no definite answer. For example, using examples of serial killers including Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy, but only to draw up more questions. However, she wrote many expert opinions too, using them to her advantage in proving her argument, and giving a statement from a respected author and expert on serial killers named Ann Rule (pg315). Rule states that 3,500 to 5,000 people become victims of serial killers. She also states that 350 serial killers are at large in our society (pg315). Additionally, Beaty also presents an early theory that was completely incorrect. This was about how to identify a serial killer by looks. Beaty then gave her expertise by stating that a serial killer could look like or be anything they choose to become. They are most likely to be males and 92 percents are white (pg316). No doubt, that she appeals to logos by providing evidence about general characteristics of serial killers she quotes that in 1911, an Italian criminologist Cesare Lombrosco concluded that ?murderers as a group [are] biologically degenerate [with] bloodshot eyes, aquiline noses, curly black hair, strong jaws, big ears, thin lips, and menacing grins?.
As I was completing this assignment, I was watching the infamous Netflix documentary entitled Making a Murderer. The documentary follows the story of Steven Avery, who is currently in prison for the death of a woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005. Steven Avery has been denying any involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach for the past eleven years. In the middle of the reading, the documentary was exploring and analyzing Steven Avery’s deviant behavior as a young man (Making). As I observed what was being discussed about Steven Avery, I was able to build the connection between how society, and the community from which he came from, perceived Steven Avery and what Kai Erikson discussed in the first couple pages of the book with regards to deviance and its relation with regards to society.
The Murderers Are Among Us, directed by Wolfe Gang Staudte, is the first postwar film. The film takes place in Berlin right after the war. Susan Wallner, a young women who has returned from a concentration camp, goes to her old apartment to find Hans Mertens living there. Hans took up there after returning home from war and finding out his house was destroyed. Hans would not leave, even after Susan returned home. Later on in the film we find out Hans was a former surgeon but can no longer deal with human suffering because of his traumatic experience in war. We find out about this traumatic experience when Ferdinand Bruckner comes into the film. Bruckner, Hans’ former captain, was responsible for killing hundreds
Morris opens the film by juxtaposing the narratives by the participants in the interviews in order to show Adams’ innocent and Harris’ guilt. The beginning of the film introduces two people that one was believably wrongly convicted and the other was suspiciously a real murderer. Adams who was criminally convicted is interviewed with a white shirt. He narrates his life all the way from Ohio to end up getting a job in Dallas. By showing Adams on the white shirt, Morris tells us Adams’ innocence and proposes our...
The film After Innocence, was a compelling documentary after watching it. It “tells the dramatic and compelling story of the exonerated - innocent men wrongfully imprisoned for decades and then released after DNA evidence proved their innocence. The film focuses on the gripping story of seven men and their emotional journey back into society and efforts to rebuild their lives. Included are a police officer, an army sergeant and a young father sent to prison and even death row for decades for crimes they did not commit” (After Innocence, About the Film, Para 1). These men had to endure agony and suffering from being remove from society. By the criminal justice system locking these men away they suffer from emotional and psychological trauma.
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
RELATED MURDER TRIALS: Making A Murderer: The Case For And Against Steve Avery And Brendan Dassey
Throughout the entire film, viewers can witness how Steven Avery is being poorly treated because of his socioeconomic status, and the fact that he is different from everyone in the Manitowoc County. Steven was lied on, picked on, and accused of committing a crime he did not commit, all because he was looked down upon and viewed as being less of a person than everyone else in the community. Watching this episode invokes an emotion that is prevalent today with our justice system. Many minorities are falsely accused and falsely imprisoned due to personal vendettas from private citizens or members of the law enforcement. Many are disfranchised due to their socioeconomic status. There are many innocent men and women serving life sentences and on death row for crimes they did not commit. In the year of 2007, Devontae Sanford, who was just 14 years old at the time, was wrongfully convicted of a crime and sentenced 90 years in
Anatomy of a Murder takes place in small-town in Michigan, where a murder has taken place. Lieutenant Frederick Manion (Lt. Manion) murdered Barney Quill a local bar and inn owner, after Mr. Quill raped his wife Laura Manion. Mrs. Manion contacts former state district attorney Paul Biegler to represent her husband, who is facing charges for first degree murder. Knowing nothing about the case, Mr. Biegler is convinced by his friend Parnell McCarthy to take the case. After two visits to Mr.Manion in jail and discussing things over with Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Biegler indirectly helps Lt. Manion enter a plea of not guilty due to temporary insanity. Aside from preparing Lt. Manion for this defense, Mr. Biegler has to worry about Mrs. Manion who is always wearing tight clothing and flirting with other men. Mr. Biegler advises her that for the best interest of her husband’s case, she should refrain from her flirtatious behavior and dress appropriately to court and until the case is over.
This story starts off with Dikeledi headed to prison for man-slaughter. When she is taken to prison, she is told that there are four women in there for the exact crime that she committed of killing her husband. The guard makes a comment that killing your husband is becoming the fashion, dismissing them as if the women had no reasons to kill their husbands. This shows that the women are not taken seriously. They way that the wardess treats the women, represents women oppressing women. There are some women that feel that men are superior and submit to their husbands not because they want to, but because of tradition or what may have been taught to them. This plays on the idea that women are inferior beings to men. By doing this they add to the
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
Everybody has heard the old saying that crime does not pay. Eventually crime and breaking the law will catch up with you. This theme is one commonly found in literature, TV and cinema. And, it is one of the messages Law & Order: Special Victims Unit represents. In this NBC television series, the SVU specializes in sexual offense crimes. This is told to viewers in narrative form in the opening sequence of each episode. Through the representation of the vicious and heinous crimes being investigated in each episode, the ideology of this show is that while the criminal justice system may be hard and flawed at times, as a whole it works and is best for American society.
Media portrayal of crime and criminal justice has become incredibly widespread in the last decade, with crime often considered both a source of news and entertainment. As a source of entertainment, crime and criminal justice have emerged as central themes across various sources of media. Most individuals do not have any direct experience with the criminal justice system, so their only source of information on this topic is the media. Particularly in television shows, portrayals of crime and criminal justice can be seen in everything from courtroom dramas to nightly news programs. Indeed, the popularity of crime shows has lead to some of television’s most enduring series, such as Law and Order and CSI. Because of this, fictional
Television has seen plenty of producers, writers and viewers attracted to crime and deviance. The crime drama series is not an unchanging structure but develops in an intricate relationship with audiences, media institutions, social contexts and other genres. Crime drama series’ structure often begins with some strains to the social order by criminal forces. Historically police officers or “cops” are good and the criminals are bad. However today we can notice “bent” cops and sometimes sympathetic villains.
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.