All impressions of the American judicial system come from watching one or two ancient American TV series "Law and Order" and "The Color of Lawyers", as well as some famous cases in the news. An obvious feeling is that the American judicial system pays attention to procedural justice and inference of innocence, and the fate of the defendant often depends on the jury's opinion.
In "Law and Order", the prosecutor will miss the opportunity to bring the perpetrator to justice because the police did not follow the procedural justice when collecting evidence, and the evidence is not allowed to be brought to court. The murderer defended. During the process, the lawyer discovered a loophole in the procedure. The prosecutor was the lawyer's good friend. However, due to the lawyer's professional ethics and the court's consideration of procedural justice, the pervert was spared the punishment. Sometimes, justice cannot be served because the jury is brainwashed by one party or the judge is biased. At this time, we will always be indignant when sitting in front of the screen, as if we were stuck in our throats. However, it is all based on our God-perspective.
Different from film and television dramas, "Making a Murderer" is a documentary, and the audience's cognitive scope is basically no larger than the presentation scope of the documentary creator. Therefore, we do not have the perspective of God, and we do not know what the truth is and what the truth is. What we can see is that although there are no other suspects, the evidence to convict SA and BD is also very insufficient. "I would rather kill a thousand by mistake than let go of one" is that even if there is a wrong kill, at least there are One is deterministic, there is a trade-off between precision and recall. But the two SA cases are very confusing. The consequences of misjudgment are not only to put an innocent person in jail and waste precious youth (this is already a big loss), but also to let the real culprit go unpunished and become a potential scourge.
Next, let’s talk about a nonsense point of view, that is, my position on whether SA is guilty or not, that is, there is no position, I can only make assumptions to reverse losses and gains. 1. If SA is the murderer, then as one comment said, justice has been served the wrong way. There are also many examples in film and television dramas where evidence is obtained through abnormal means, and the real murderer is finally caught. Maybe it is very pleasing to look at it from the perspective of God. But looking at it from the perspective of God, you can't help but worry. When will "I" fall into this situation, can such a judicial system still protect the rights and interests of "I"? Or as long as the prosecution is happy. 2. If SA is not the murderer, this is a very bad situation. We see that innocent people bear the consequences for mistakes that they have not made, but the real murderer is at large, and may cause potential threats. The police are to blame. There must be some corrupt link in the public authority.
There are no prophets in real life, and there are bound to be unjust, false and wrong cases. We can reduce the misjudgment of cases through continuous correction and improvement, but just like physical experiments, there will always be errors in any case, and it is unavoidable. I think the Steven Avery case is an unavoidable error in the judicial system, and maybe one day the truth will emerge, but so far this is the only choice.
Finally, I admire the creators. It is well known that if you want to be familiar with a case, you have to look up a lot of information. The film is even more intuitive. Various court records, confessions, audio recordings, videos, photos, testing data..., sorted out more than a dozen boxes. . And I believe that the main creators will have to dabble in far more materials than these, and they have to edit these materials so that the twists and turns we see are comparable to the finished film of the TV series, which I admire.
View more about Making a Murderer reviews
