News that makes you say WTF! (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
Oh dat is messed up.
But you see for the documentary filmmaker, the motivation is conflict and a point of view. Having anything that mitigates or dilutes the agitation they are trying to convey -- or the point of view of the filmmaker -- essentially dilutes the weight of their work. Nobody is interested in watching a 10-hour documentary where the end result is mixed feelings of "meh".
My experiences with court cases is typically there's a lot of mixed feelings and "meh". That doesn't make for good binge-watching television.
As such, documentarians cannot be trusted for fairness or balance in most things, and that is never more true when it comes to a legal process or decision. Their motivations are primarily to maximize drama, not truth. Worse is an audience who perceives the documentary as truth and not drama.
I never said the court of law was great or perfect. I sat on one trial as the jury foreman for a seven felony count case on a string of home burglaries where the jury was hung on all seven counts and I fumed for weeks afterwards ... even to the point of reverse-engineering the judge's email address so I could vent to her all the problems with the case, the prosecution, and some fellow jurors.
Even with all those flaws, making legal decisions based on watching a documentary is even more ludicrous. Due process is thrown out the window and justice is metered out based on a filmmaker's whims for what gets them funded.
Talk to us Americans about wildings when you get the chance to catch up.
But you see for the documentary filmmaker, the motivation is conflict and a point of view. Having anything that mitigates or dilutes the agitation they are trying to convey -- or the point of view of the filmmaker -- essentially dilutes the weight of their work. Nobody is interested in watching a 10-hour documentary where the end result is mixed feelings of "meh".
My experiences with court cases is typically there's a lot of mixed feelings and "meh". That doesn't make for good binge-watching television.
As such, documentarians cannot be trusted for fairness or balance in most things, and that is never more true when it comes to a legal process or decision. Their motivations are primarily to maximize drama, not truth. Worse is an audience who perceives the documentary as truth and not drama.
I never said the court of law was great or perfect. I sat on one trial as the jury foreman for a seven felony count case on a string of home burglaries where the jury was hung on all seven counts and I fumed for weeks afterwards ... even to the point of reverse-engineering the judge's email address so I could vent to her all the problems with the case, the prosecution, and some fellow jurors.
Even with all those flaws, making legal decisions based on watching a documentary is even more ludicrous. Due process is thrown out the window and justice is metered out based on a filmmaker's whims for what gets them funded.
Talk to us Americans about wildings when you get the chance to catch up.
Not necessarily.
Seriously, you could say the same of any piece of investigative journalism. The documentary surely doesn't show the ultimate truth, and no one in here is arguing that you should free Avery based on it, but it is a very powerful example of what can go wrong in the (US) legal system.
- - - Updated - - -
What happenend in Cologne was horrible, period.
But the reaction of the media and a lot of people in general has been pretty frightening as well.
Oh, and that facebook page is seriously disgusting.
Seriously, you could say the same of any piece of investigative journalism. The documentary surely doesn't show the ultimate truth, and no one in here is arguing that you should free Avery based on it, but it is a very powerful example of what can go wrong in the (US) legal system.
- - - Updated - - -
What happenend in Cologne was horrible, period.
But the reaction of the media and a lot of people in general has been pretty frightening as well.
Oh, and that facebook page is seriously disgusting.
A lot goes wrong. Just because a system exists doesn't mean there aren't abuses. Hell, I'm partly (and cynically) amazed that the news of these abuses is even out there, given that the defendant is a white dude.
But for me to suggest that someone convicted of a crime deserves a pardon (some calling even for a presidential pardon for the guy, even if it's under state law) based on my watching of a documentary is so flawed logic on so many levels, it's scary. It shows how clueless the public is about what due process means and how it works.
It also shows how easily deluded and manipulated the mass public can be on the righteousness of causes without critical thought or proper rational skepticism. This is the parallel to the "hands up, don't shoot" mythology that existed and even persists for Mike Brown.
On the flipside, it tells me we are no more evolved than the Southern lynch mobs of the past ... the same impulses that got Farkhunda killed by a mob in Afghanistan exist here, and the deluded public doesn't even realize that they're following that lead by not showing enough critical thinking or skepticism.
Agreed.
But for me to suggest that someone convicted of a crime deserves a pardon (some calling even for a presidential pardon for the guy, even if it's under state law) based on my watching of a documentary is so flawed logic on so many levels, it's scary. It shows how clueless the public is about what due process means and how it works.
It also shows how easily deluded and manipulated the mass public can be on the righteousness of causes without critical thought or proper rational skepticism. This is the parallel to the "hands up, don't shoot" mythology that existed and even persists for Mike Brown.
On the flipside, it tells me we are no more evolved than the Southern lynch mobs of the past ... the same impulses that got Farkhunda killed by a mob in Afghanistan exist here, and the deluded public doesn't even realize that they're following that lead by not showing enough critical thinking or skepticism.
Agreed.
I haven't seen it but I agree with the point that Greg is making. I'm in no way in a place to try to justify the system, I'm not even fully aware of its shortcomings, but I hate having the public opinion engaged in such matters through a documentary. I hate, as a lay person, to be forced to form an opinion on something I'm neither specialized in nor completely aware of its all nuances. I'm not specifically talking about this case, I was actually listening to a podcast a few months ago about a Pakistani-American charged for having killed his ex in 1999 when he was a teen, and it was devastating to my lay ears from the beginning because I had decided instantly that he's for sure not murdered the girl. Thing is, if a case is so easy that the public calls it resolved after watching a few episodes of a documentary about it (look at the link Greg posted), I wonder why it wasn't that easy for a group of people more knowledgeable about law and the case? I understand there are controversial cases, that the system is far from perfect, that juries make mistakes, etc, but even in such allegedly obvious cases as this one (the title itself is not impartial to begin with) that the public easily forms a judgment on after watching a couple of episodes of a documentary about it?
He sounds like those asses you are sure they are lying, even when they are telling the truth.
He sounds like those asses you are sure they are lying, even when they are telling the truth.
You make a good point about the entertainment thing, not making legal decisions based on television, but your criticism is a little overboard. The doc makes some good points and shows some major issues with small town justice. For this one case in Wisconsin there are probably 30 or 40 like it in states like Texas and Georgia.
A San Francisco jury/court room experience is completely different from what you see in the rural US and the two aren't really comparable.
A San Francisco jury/court room experience is completely different from what you see in the rural US and the two aren't really comparable.
I don't believe they are all that different, at least in what can self-destruct a fair trial.
I had two women who were victims of spousal abuse in the past, and they were not properly screened out by the prosecution during jury selection. So what happens is the defense says the defendant was a victim of his "mastermind" girlfriend who told him to stand with reams of jewelry she handed to him in his pockets outside of an active burglary scene with police present -- totally unaware that they were even stolen goods, let alone that he or his girlfriend were involved in their actual theft. And the two jurors are like, "Oh yeah, he looks innocent enough and I can see how he could be abused by his significant other and I feel sorry for him ... no way can he be guilty because he was under mental duress." And so we're hung on all 7 counts.
I've also been on cases where there have been super aggro cops who overreacted and got other cops to cover for them (more IMO from the trials). And the blue wall of silence was in certain effect. No small town justice required.
My criticism is that it would be one thing to sign a petition that a court case should be re-evaluated for abnormalcies and abuses. But to leap to the extra-judicial conclusion that thousands of people who weren't present at that initial trial are qualified to make judgements to request the governor to pardon a criminal shows a complete lack of judicial understanding, critical thinking, and healthy skeptical thought.
I had two women who were victims of spousal abuse in the past, and they were not properly screened out by the prosecution during jury selection. So what happens is the defense says the defendant was a victim of his "mastermind" girlfriend who told him to stand with reams of jewelry she handed to him in his pockets outside of an active burglary scene with police present -- totally unaware that they were even stolen goods, let alone that he or his girlfriend were involved in their actual theft. And the two jurors are like, "Oh yeah, he looks innocent enough and I can see how he could be abused by his significant other and I feel sorry for him ... no way can he be guilty because he was under mental duress." And so we're hung on all 7 counts.
I've also been on cases where there have been super aggro cops who overreacted and got other cops to cover for them (more IMO from the trials). And the blue wall of silence was in certain effect. No small town justice required.
My criticism is that it would be one thing to sign a petition that a court case should be re-evaluated for abnormalcies and abuses. But to leap to the extra-judicial conclusion that thousands of people who weren't present at that initial trial are qualified to make judgements to request the governor to pardon a criminal shows a complete lack of judicial understanding, critical thinking, and healthy skeptical thought.
Aww, last thing I could imagine about you was your having "immigrant" roots 
That's how we learned to be jealous at immigrants after us.I was on a jury once that wanted to give a guy caught with pot a not guilty because they thought the cop was an asshole.
I was speaking to the entire court room experience. It's not the same. Judges and attorneys have a much different sense of control of jury in a small town than in a big city. There's a lot of out of the box stuff that happens with prosecutors and judges influencing decisions.
I was speaking to the entire court room experience. It's not the same. Judges and attorneys have a much different sense of control of jury in a small town than in a big city. There's a lot of out of the box stuff that happens with prosecutors and judges influencing decisions.
That much I can believe. I was detailed by a patrol officer in St. Stephen, South Carolina once and felt lucky that I escaped after several hours without being anally raped and my body dumped in a swamp. All because I was the passenger in a car where a friend was speeding 10 over the limit with expired plates (his fault) and the cop decided to tear his car apart for drugs for some reason.
The law only goes so far in places like that to where it's convenient to those in authority.
The law only goes so far in places like that to where it's convenient to those in authority.
Hoori raises a good point. You are lay persons. I am not though. And perhaps that is why I do believe the documentary is so powerful. You see, there's a point where mistakes by the prosecution and police are not acceptable, regardless of the outcome or circumstances of the trial and where they will infringe a person's rights regardless of context.
Again, watch the damn thing. And focus on Brendan Dassey's confession. There is simply no way that can ever be justified.
Again, watch the damn thing. And focus on Brendan Dassey's confession. There is simply no way that can ever be justified.
