# data[].attributes.body
Given the sentiment expressed by Cory Booker, justice was not served completely in the case of Walter McMillian. In Booker’s tweet, he is saying that everyone should be equally upset when witnessing injustice, regardless of the effect it has on individuals outside of it, because in the end it does affect us all. Allowing injustices, even those that benefit you, is a disservice to the justice system and our nation as a whole. Now, in regards to Walter’s case, the improper investigation, conviction without proof of guilt, and the punishment of an innocent man were all instances of injustice. Even with the success of the appeal, Walter still served over six years on death row for a crime he did not commit. One of the greatest faults of the system in all of this was the lack of accountability shown by the system after exoneration. Walter had lost everything, his family, his reputation, his business along with the fact that he still faced the malice of those who refused to believe his innocence. The sheriff who played the biggest role in these injustices still refused to acknowledge his wrongdoings, further perpetuating the public anger towards McMillian. The fact that there were still so many people who cared more for their own biases and prejudices than the emergence of true justice shows that Booker’s statement holds true, and we as a society have to put justice first because regardless of our own personal belief systems, there must be justice for all.

Reading this book over the course of the last few weeks has given me a greater emotional insight into the people who play roles in the justice system. For one, the story has made it more clear that the players within the system are not just nameless cogs in the machine of justice, but rather regular human beings with the same tendencies toward mistakes and biases just like any regular civilian. While we as citizens want to expect perfection from the government that holds power over us, there will always be issues because it will always rely on the complex and volatile nature of humanity. In the reading, it was nice to see how impactful one person can be when they are focused on justice, while holding a certain level of compassion for those affected by the lack of it. It is not a surprise to hear about corruption and misdeeds committed throughout judicial histories, but there are revelations of hope given in the stories that focus on fighting for what is right in the face of such unjust obstacles.

# data[].attributes.body
The discrepancies observed between media portrayals of the criminal justice system and the reality of how it functions can lead to confusion within the general public about what to expect from those participating in the system itself. In the media, even outside of television based dramatizations, it can be seen that reporters take it upon themselves to create and push narratives that sway public opinion. I have been witness to such things as news sources characterize people within cases while leaving out important context in order to make a more interesting story. Buzz words like “corrupt cop” “party girl” “honor student” are included in these media made judgments to gain public support in one direction or the other. However, the justice system is focused on evidence, it is meant to be objective and evidence based. So when these stories are created to form mass opinion, people lose faith in the system based on it not agreeing with what the public thought should happen. The media also doesn’t educate the public on the unglamorous parts of the system, such as admissibility, constitutional precedent, and proper procedure, leaving the masses to base understanding on what has been fed to them on television and in movies. While I like to think that most people understand on a base level that tv is not reality, subconsciously I would assume that a lot of people assume some truth to the portrayal. As for myself, the media has probably played a role in my views on the justice system, but I also gained a lot of it through personal experience and as many others who have, I find it is easy to only take in the forms of media that confirm those beliefs.

Mass incarceration in America is one of the most obvious indicators of flaws in our country’s justice system. In the 13th documentary, we learn that the U.S. houses 25% of the world’s incarcerated persons, completely disproportionate to our population. This either implies that we have the worst and greatest number of criminals in the world, or the more likely option is that we are handling crime incorrectly. In my opinion, the prison system in this country is inhumane and unnecessarily large. So many American tax dollars go towards imprisoning people that either need rehabilitation or do not deserve the punishment. Prisons were first made as a loophole to the abolition of slavery, to gain free labor as a result of punishing crime, but with the same history of policing in America, this method disproportionately targets black and brown communities. Still today, people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and even killed by branches of the justice system meant to protect them. The increased rates of imprisonment damage these communities through the destruction of families and reputations. All of this creates legislative loopholes that allow for discrimination and subjugation of these peoples. A quote I once heard that applies here said, “Racism is woven so intricately into the fabric of America that standing against it is seen as an act of treason”. The distrust of the criminal justice system is so beyond valid that I almost don’t understand how there are people who fail to question it when every stage of our history proves that people of color, men women and children alike, should be afraid of it.

# data[].attributes.body
Forensic evidence needs to be objective for similar reasons that all matters in a courtroom need to be objective, as true justice hangs in the balance of these matters. Forensics have been an unfortunate factor in many wrongful verdicts throughout decades of the criminal justice system, threatening the integrity of the system as a whole. Also, though this class has been informative on the true nature of forensic science, many average citizens that serve on jury do not have this knowledge. This means that forensic evidence is most often regarded as concrete, scientifically proven evidence without consideration for the subjectivity, biases, or errors that are prevalent in the field. Ensuring that the evidence accumulated for a given case is completely objective, in ways, negates the need for this education in order to make a clear decision. In my opinion, though objectivity is important, with the state of forensics right now, it seems impossible. By definition, forensics relies on human judgment in many of its subcategories, such as fingerprinting and impressions, which inherently increases the likelihood for error and bias to overtake the processes. After learning what I have so far about the way forensic science has been applied to criminal justice, I am hesitant to accept its previous role in the courtroom, specifically those reliant on “expert” testimony, but excluding more scientifically scrutinized areas such as DNA and drug testing.

A major factor of both cases shown in documentaries this week that had an impact on the proceeding was media attention and interpretation. Though it is not supposed to according to law, the court of public opinion can heavily influence the outcome of any criminal case. In cases that are very high profile, the way the media addresses the proceedings, victims, and defendants in public forums can create a general unconscious bias surrounding the investigation and trial. When the Central Park 5 were painted out to be hardcore gang members, the world stopped seeing them for what they were; scared children in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Amanda Knox was described as a sex-crazed party girl, her credibility in the eyes of the public was tarnished with the rest of her reputation. The media can have a way of turning real life events into “good stories” that help them sell content, but can drastically change the way we as people view the sources. Though this has been shown to be a problem of bias and unethical behavior, all persons accused of crimes have a right to public trial. With everything being public, the media inherently has a right to spread the information, and under their right to free speech they can twist and turn it however they please. While I realize there is an obvious moral dilemma surrounding this, I will admit that I fall into crime documentaries and Twitter news spirals as often as the next person, so I cannot really imagine this issue can be avoided due to the large market that exists from our own morbid human curiosity.

# data[].attributes.body
If I am being completely honest with myself, I do not think I would make a good investigator. While I am very inquisitive and my ability to find out things about people online should land me a place in the FBI, there are duties and details about the investigative process on which I would likely fall short. Attention to detail, descriptive reporting, and effective time management are only a few on that list. I am a person who tends to rely on my instincts when making quick decisions, and unlike the media shows us sometimes, that is not always the best path to take. On television, we see detectives that always ask the right questions and follow the right leads, but in reality it only takes one mistake or wasted time taken on a false lead that could derail an entire investigation. If law enforcement were to actually behave like those we see on television, i.e, consistently breaking protocols, avoiding paperwork, or improperly collecting evidence, there would be no cases that resulted in conviction because there would be no part of it that would be legally admissible in court. In my opinion, the way law enforcement operates now is very flawed as well, but in a lot of cases there is still respect and consideration for legality which leads to plenty, unfortunately not all, of criminals deserving of punishments being persecuted.

Until reading and watching this week's materials, I had no idea that there were so many gaps in the scientific basis of forensic science. This obviously leads me to believe that most other jurors suffer from a similar lack of information. Failed forensics can be seriously harmful to the integrity of the justice system, as seen in the videos of the week, the inconsistencies of these practices have led to false convictions and false acquittals on numerous occasions. The problem is that there is such a long history of forensic science being not only accepted, but necessary in a criminal trial to the point that if it were to be disqualified all together, it would be immeasurably more difficult to prosecute real criminals. Personally, I am unclear on a solution to the issue because on one hand, I trust the scientific basis of things like DNA and even fingerprint analysis based on its long history, but there are many other areas of the science that I think need to be studied in much greater detail before being admissible to a court in order to conserve the semblance of justice we have now.

# data[].attributes.body
The CSI effect, accompanied by the overarching tech effect, describes the influence of the tv show CSI and similar media over juror expectations regarding forensic evidence in a criminal trial. While most experimental conclusions on this phenomenon provide little evidence that it has any impact on jury decisions, the anecdotal instances reveal courtroom troubles such as false acquittals, extra pressure on prosecutors, and exploitation by the defense. Assuming the CSI tv show does delude jurors' expectations, it results in increased expectation of forensic evidence due to the flawless nature of forensic processes portrayed in this type of media that does not prepare jurors for real world complications of the science. This would be inherently problematic because forensic science does face tribulations in criminal proceedings that jurors may not be aware of or understand completely due to the glamorized source from which they gained their general knowledge on the subject.

When I was younger, I remember gaining most of my knowledge regarding how high school, or even college, would play out in a social sense from my television screen. I absorbed the standard tropes of various early 2000s movies and classic tv shows that clearly depicted everything about it from what was considered popular or dorky to what clothes were cool and what would have you sitting alone at lunch. Obviously, as most girls without a clue did, I tried my best to mimic the practices that were glorified on screen: skirts and snarky attitude, mostly. None of this worked out for me in the long run because it was all manufactured and most of it was inaccurate anyway. Wearing high heels to school was completely wrong, but being a cheerleader didn’t hurt. So there was a give and take, but it took me a long time to realize what was real and what was drama for the screen. It unfortunately has taken me until my senior year of college to understand that none of it was actually real and the only way to experience life is to live it, in reality and as yourself, not under the mask of tv show characters or anyone else.

# data[].attributes.body
The principles of memory and learning can be most obviously reflected in the aspect of eyewitness testimony within the criminal justice system. While these testimonies are essential to the conviction of criminals in the courtroom, due to their ability to convince a jury, they can also be problematic to actual justice. Memory is not as reliable as we would like to believe considering its rapid deterioration and susceptibility to suggestion. In the case of an eyewitness account, the witness is usually recounting sensory information, most times obtained quickly or under stress which can be easily forgotten. Learning comes into play in the form of positive reinforcement that can alter memory through suggestion. When law enforcement affirms an eyewitness account it increases the likelihood that the witness will feel greater certainty in their claims. Therefore, when a witness makes a genuine mistake, the legal system has no recourse for justice, as it is not considered perjury to remember incorrectly. This can often lead to false convictions that undermine the credibility of the justice system as a whole.

Jurors are average citizens selected from the community to serve as peer evaluators of a case in trial. This means that they have no specialized training regarding law or court processes which can manifest as misinformation or biases that can impact a verdict decision. An individual’s personal beliefs can prevent objectivity in their evaluation of a trial even in their application to participants in the court. For instance, a prosecutor’s job is to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but a juror could potentially look to the defense attorney to prove innocence instead. Jurors could also look to the judge as the decision maker and follow whatever perceived response they are giving as an indicator of how they should decide. Overall, a healthy understanding of the roles in a trial is of high importance for objectivity of a jury member.