# data[].attributes.body
I think the book is called Just Mercy because it goes to show that Justice and Mercy are not mutually exclusive. The title itself talks about how Mercy is just one portion of justice. I’ve read that Stevenson stated that he used this title because of his beliefs that the criminal justice system has become deficient in providing compassion and mercy for inmates and those affected when their friend or family member is incarcerated. He used the phrase, we don’t put crimes in prison, we put people in prison and that really resonates with me in terms of how we treat those in the prison system. In terms of how this book impacted me, it deepened my understanding of the injustices that occur in the system. I knew there were injustices from the Black Lives Matter Movement, but like every other trend, after it dies down so does the hype surround it. Now I can sit here and say I feel like a changed person, but that would be lying. Although I feel for the injustices in the system, I don’t feel like enough people want to make a change which is frustrating. I definitely think when it comes to conversations about the CJS I will speak up for the injustices but as a person I can only accomplish so much. It’s going to take a lot for such a deeply rooted issue to change, doesn’t mean it’s impossible though.

# data[].attributes.body
I would argue that justice was served in terms of Walter, but justice itself has to be done at the right time for it to be considered served. It was good he was released but the fact it took so long and that the system had already failed him so intensely, it lacked this sense of merit. So in terms of timing, this was way too late for justice to be a good thing, overall still good but it takes that sentiment away. As for completely, overall in the criminal justice system, like I had mentioned in class that there has not been a real push for a change or any change has occurred since the release of Just Mercy. The issue is exactly what the Twitter quote displays. We saw this a bit in the 2020-2022 Black Lives Matter movement, where people who were unaffected began to protest and take part in the movement. But as do all trends, the support for this dwindled because members of the community were unaffected so theory efforts seemed to go unnoticed, or were not needed. I can’t say I hear much about police brutality in the news in terms of protesting, not to say it doesn’t still happen but it is not as prevalent. But it 100% would be if everyone in society was becoming affected, or if we all were in a pandemic where we had nothing better to do with our lives.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this week’s chapters of Just Mercy, and viewing The 13th documentary, there is a clear indicator of how black and brown communities are disproportionately incarcerated. Focusing on the reasoning behind this, given that black and brown communities are located in low income, low resourced areas. This can be blamed through the racial inequalities that limit black and brown individuals from relocating to “high income areas.” These inequalities are built into the American system, stemming back to slavery, we as a society are still suffering the impacts of it. The 13th discussed this “War on Drugs,” a national issue declared by President Nixon, which incarcerated millions of individuals for being in possession of drugs. Circulating back to the fact that many low income communities, and often turn to drugs as a source of income… it leaves one race to “blame” for the drug issue in America: People of Color. In terms of Just Mercy, it can be noted that the children who were incarcerated were both people of color and came from low income areas. The impact of this being that more and more people begin to view people of color as “deviant,” instead of just people.

# data[].attributes.body
The entire criminal investigation process relies on members of the CJS, as well as jurors and those involved in case matters in terms of their own personal ethics, and what they do in their own power to keep investigations ethical. It is important that those involved in a criminal investigation should be held to the highest ethical standards because their opinions, and their jobs directly affect the path of those being charged with crimes, or those who have been victim to a crime. In Walter McMillian’s case from Just Mercy, he is implicated in the murder of Rhonda Morrison through McMillian’s affair partner Karen Kelly. Kelly had also been having an affair with Ralph Myers, who then told Police that McMillian, Kelly and Myers all killed Morrison, even though Myers had never met McMillian. It is important to note how keeping bias away from court cases can and does affect the ethical outcome of the trial. Continuing with McMillian’s story, the judge who was handling his case deemed him as a “drug dealer and a likely member of the Dixie Mafia.” This occurred even though the community saw McMillian as a well-respected Black business owner, the judge’s bias towards McMillian ultimately ended up affecting the ethics of the case and how the court went about incarcerating McMillian.

# data[].attributes.body
During the time of the crime and investigation, there seemed to be a real trend of racially motivated crimes in the area or Central Park. This is just one of the many outside facts that might have been at play during the investigation. We discussed during class about how society didn’t treat the investigation process as something insanely important and because of this there were not many protocols followed during the investigation. This is another reason for the ultimate outcome. The third thing being the skin color of the boys matched the wildly inappropriate accusations that Black people have been facing for decades. When the news reads “Looking for Black male, roughly age 20,” there are too many people that fit this description. To prevent bias in racial concerns I think the only thing they could have looked at was the space given at the crime seen and if it was feasible for all 5 boys to fit in the 2 person area. As for the investigation process, there have been steps to ensuring this is a truthful process. For starters, Miranda rights have to be read by the police officer, I don’t think the boys knew exactly what they were entitled to and this ultimately led to their confession.

# data[].attributes.body
Although it may be hard to remain unbiased, it is essential to the process of forensic evidence, analysis and the judgment of jurors or those who work for the CJS. As we know there are many types of bias, such as racial bias, white coat syndrome, gender bias, the list goes on. Some ways bias might be limited in the analysis of forensic evidence is through what is called a blind analysis. This is where those who analyze forensic evidence do not know anything about a certain case, other than what they need to for the analysis, and instead of forming a preconceived opinion about the evidence they go into the analysis with a clear consciousness. This ensures that any and all information collected from the analysis is free from bias and any sort of outside influence. It is essential that forensic evidence is clear from bias because if someone had already had an idea of what occurred to the evidence, or if there were outside biases, this would affect the prosecution of evidence. There may be a conviction that shouldn’t have really happened, or maybe if the evidence wasn’t really substantial then there maybe be fabricated evidence in turn to make an arrest/conviction.

# data[].attributes.body
Circling back to a previous race and racism class I took, we discussed how there are inequalities in the criminal justice systems towards people of color. In terms of the presence or likelihood of failed forensic evidence, it seems there is a higher chance of wrongfully convicting or failing to include forensic evidence in cases with people of color as the prime suspect. As we had discussed in class, the Ronald Cotton case demonstrated how failing to have forensic evidence or lacking forensic evidence can put an innocent person behind bars. This begs the question of what would have happened if Ronald Cotton was White. Failed forensic evidence can be prevented by ensuring there are rigorous protocols in evidence collection, storage, and analysis. Not having or using proper protocol will result in the incarceration of innocent people. In terms of gender, this sort of manifested in the Rea case, I find that no matter what women do in terms of emotions, they are just viewed as hysterical. Which she definitely is, which I believe is why the court system neglected her case of failed forensic evidence or the lack of any forensic evidence at all, ultimately putting her in prison.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think I have the qualities of being a good investigator. Some qualities I would definitely struggle with are patience, and ability to improvise. I would be way too anxious in the entire process waiting for answers or waiting for the case to progress. This would be troublesome for myself and those around me, who I would bother until the case was closed. With the ability to improvise, I am not very good on my feet and if a plan I have goes off course I struggle with adapting. The other qualities I feel I am adequate with, but not super confident in myself as well. If an investigator relies on their knowledge from television, they could definitely miss a lot of steps in the investigation process because showtimes have to cut the “anticlimactic” parts of the investigation. They would also struggle with understanding boundaries and protocol, because characters on a show don’t actually face repercussions if they cross a boundary or miss protocol. A short term effect might include that they aren’t super knowledgeable and have to learn, but a long term effect of this would be like in Law and Order SVU, when Olivia went to the dance with the suspect, it could call into play her validity of being a detective, and could even have her lose her license

# data[].attributes.body
Of course there are potential problems with TV shows inaccurately portraying the criminal justice system and its procedures and protocols. Specifically, the ones we have discussed in class are the CSI Effect and the Tech Effect. The CSI Effect refers to the theory that people who watch CSI shows, and then go to serve on a jury or have to deal with the court system in some aspect have a preconceived notion on how they believe the court system is/does run. This notion is entirely fictional, and dramatized in television to promote viewer activity. Oftentimes when people are dealing with this effect, they tend to lose some sort of respect for the criminal justice system and how it operates in real time because their beliefs are skewed. The second effect, the Tech Effect also deals with the preconceived notion of how the justice system runs. In this scenario though, television shows are showing hugh technology/technological advances in television that might not be real, or the precinct the person is dealing with does not have access to higher technology. There are a lot of reasons why both of these are an issue, but the main one that affects courts today is how people begin to lose hope or faith that the justice system is actually doing what it needs to do. Some people believe there needs to be major reform in the justice system, which yes is always the case for certain aspects but not for the reasons discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
I find it hard to pinpoint things I have learned from non-news mass media sources. Take Tiktok for example, you see so many videos in such a short amount of time it can be hard to retain any information. I learned that wrapping celery in tinfoil can help lengthen the life of the celery, when I tried it, it did work but it now isn’t something I really practice. So yes, accurate, but not life changing. In terms of apps like Facebook, or Instagram I’ve learned a lot of what seem to be arbitrary things, like that I have a color season that helps me get dressed in the morning. Certain body skin tones will look better in red or blue depending on your season (winter, autumn, spring and summer). This is something I try to use in my life, because I notice a difference when I wear light pink (I look washed out), versus a more magenta color (my eyes pop). The final thing I have learned recently from a non-news mass media is that spam callers will record your voice to use in an alternate call to a family member to trick them into sending the spammer money. I have seen a real life story of this on TikTok, and now I know not to use my voice or even answer spam calls. I think non-news media is important to get quick information from, but not serious media like issues in Palestine or a subject like mass shootings.

# data[].attributes.body
In terms of shows like Judge Judy, Law and Order SVU, Criminal Minds, etc… These shows create demand characteristics some people begin associating with real-life courtroom settings. A demand characteristic is any aspect of a situation that may cue participants as to what behaviors are expected. Which really just ties into how stereotypes influence our behavior. Take Judge Judy, you see the standard judge in a black gown, she hears both sides of the argument, but sometimes she makes jokes, or acts in an unprofessional way that you would not see in a normal courtroom. If you have never been to a courtroom and have only seen Judge Judy’s perception of a courtroom, when you enter a real-life courtroom you will be shocked by the seriousness in the judge’s voice, the harshness in the defendants, and then entire feeling of the room is just very gloom and serious whereas in Judge Judy it’s more lighthearted and upbeat. In terms of how these experiences might create cues for us to rely on in terms of witness believability, it's the same sort of deal. There is this stereotype of what a “truthful” person looks like. You are more likely to believe an expert witness if they are dressed professionally, use specific vocab or provide visuals. That doesn’t mean all expert witnesses will do that though, even if they have 30 plus years of experience, if they maybe aren’t dressed to standard, or don’t have visuals, their believability and credibility is shot down.

# data[].attributes.body
To be a juror, you have to go into the courtroom with an open mind. This is really hard to do to begin with, and sometimes it can prohibit people from serving on a jury. Expectations like this might be beneficial for two reasons. Reason one being if a juror has high expectations for those involved in the court system, they will trust the fairness of the hearing. This will help the juror make a more informed decision in the end. Reason two, having high expectations of those in the courtroom, knowing these people have high power, will promote confidence in the presented evidence. Knowing that the judge, prosecutors and law enforcement team are committed to seeing justice, not just putting people away is the goal. On the other hand,   if a person does not have a very good experience with someone in the courtroom, they will remember that and that instance will rub them the wrong way no matter what. If a juror holds racial bias towards the Black judge, prosecutor or defendant, they will question the legitimacy of the case and might not rule in favor of justice as the law states. The second reason this might be detrimental to the process is the influence of gender stereotypes. If a juror is holding onto the stereotype that women are here to please men, this will not bid over well in a domestic violence case and put the life of the defendant in danger.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending upon one’s own perception of those in the criminal justice system, it can be hard to remain unbiased. This opinion, varying from person to person, has to be determined through previous positive or negative experiences related to the criminal justice system. Using the example of stereotypes of people who engage in crime, it is hard to be objective in thinking because of how society has treated and criminalized those in the criminal justice system, whether that be those in jail, in prison or with a record. Society has fuelled this negative motion of those who have committed crimes, even if they have turned their lives around, or done their “time.” By human nature it is just hard to be objective, society tends to go with whatever the vast majority is going with. This keeps our knowledge of the CJS, biased. In regards to how this impacts the operations of and the public’s beliefs in the CJS, it could really go both ways. Many people support the system wholeheartedly, while others think there are far too many flaws with the CJS. In a world where everyone supports the CJS, this would fuel the current system. In a world where everyone hates the CJS, it begins to call for a motion of reform. But in our world, a combination of both, it keeps the status of the CJS stagnant, where policies are updated per usual, but not in a reform-like fashion.

# data[].attributes.body
To be honest there is not a ton I know about the criminal justice system. I know the police, courts, and corrections make up the criminal justice system. I know that in recent years there has been multiple controversies concerning the criminal justice system and how members treat people of color, and minorities. I’ve heard both points of view on that matter, and I’ve also heard opinions who think the criminal justice system is outdated. Other than that I recognize the criminal justice system tries to alleviate crime in the world, enforcing the law, etc… But I don’t feel I was taught how the criminal justice system came to be, or why it came to be. I look forward to understanding more about our criminal justice system, especially since I do enjoy a criminal justice TV show every once and a while!!

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! My name is Alyssa, I am a junior with a major in psychology and a concentration in elementary education. I look forward to learning about the CSI this spring semester!