# data[].attributes.body
Given this sentiment, after the resolution of Walter's case, would you say that Justice was completely served? Why or why not? Make sure you use information/evidence from your reading in Just Mercy.

While I believe that Walter's release was a significant victory and that it represents an important step toward justice, I do not believe that justice has been fully served. Walter spent more than 30 years on death row for a crime he did not commit, and he was subjected to a legal system that was rife with bias, prejudice, and systemic injustices. While his eventual release is cause for celebration, it cannot undo the years of trauma and pain that he and his family endured, nor can it compensate for the many other individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

Moreover, Walter's case is just one example of the many ways in which our criminal justice system is broken. As Mr. Stevenson points out in his book, there are countless other individuals who are currently languishing in prison for crimes they did not commit, or who have been subjected to harsh and unjust sentences due to the biases and prejudices of those in power. Until we are able to address these systemic injustices, and to work towards creating a more just and equitable legal system, we cannot truly say that justice has been served.

How does the knowledge that you've learned from reading Just Mercy impact your perspective of people involved in the criminal justice system?

Reading Just Mercy has had a profound impact on my perspective of people involved in the criminal justice system. Prior to reading this book, I had a very limited understanding of the ways in which our legal system is plagued by bias and systemic injustices, and I had never really considered the ways in which these injustices impact the lives of those who are most vulnerable. However, after reading Mr. Stevenson's powerful and moving account of his work, I am now much more aware of the ways in which our legal system fails those who are most in need, and of the ways in which we can work to create a more just and equitable society. I am also much more aware of the power of storytelling, and of the ways in which we can use our voices to bring about change and to challenge the status quo.

# data[].attributes.body
What impact do discrepancies between media and reality have on the public’s understanding and faith in the criminal justice and legal systems?
Discrepancies between media portrayals of the criminal justice and legal systems and the reality can have significant impacts on the public's understanding and faith in these institutions. Media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and perception, and when there are discrepancies between media narratives and the actual functioning of the criminal justice system, it can create misunderstandings and a lack of trust.

What are the societal impacts resulting from mass incarceration, particularly on the black and brown communities from which people are disproportionately incarcerated, and children who are tried/imprisoned as adults?

One impact is the perpetuation of stereotypes and biases. Media often sensationalizes crime, focusing on certain types of offenses and over-representing minority individuals as perpetrators. This can reinforce existing biases and contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of certain communities, particularly black and brown communities. When people are exposed to these skewed portrayals, it can influence their perception of crime, criminals, and the need for punitive measures.

How do these impacts change our society as a whole?  Make sure you reference both The 13th and Just Mercy in your discussion.

The documentary "The 13th," highlights the historical and systemic roots of mass incarceration in the United States. It examines how racial bias has shaped policies and contributed to the disproportionate incarceration of black and brown individuals. The film reveals how media portrayals of crime, especially during the height of the war on drugs, created a narrative that associated drug use and criminality with communities of color, leading to discriminatory policies and practices.

"Just Mercy" focuses on the experiences of marginalized individuals within the criminal justice system, specifically addressing issues of racial bias and wrongful convictions. The book emphasizes how media narratives can shape public perception and affect the outcomes of cases. It highlights the importance of accurate and fair media representation in ensuring justice.

The societal impacts resulting from mass incarceration, particularly on black and brown communities, are profound. Mass incarceration perpetuates cycles of poverty and inequality by removing individuals from their communities, disrupting families, and hindering economic opportunities. The over-policing and harsh sentencing practices disproportionately affect minority communities, leading to a loss of trust in law enforcement and the justice system.

The impacts of these disparities and practices on society as a whole deepen existing social divisions and inequalities, fostering a sense of injustice and disenfranchisement among affected communities. The lack of trust in the criminal justice system can lead to decreased cooperation with law enforcement.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is it important for forensic evidence to be as objective as possible?

It is important for forensic evidence to be as objective as possible because objectivity in forensic evidence ensures that all individuals involved in a criminal case are treated fairly and that the evidence is evaluated without bias.

As well as objective forensic evidence is based on scientific principles and methods, increasing its reliability and accuracy. This is essential for building a strong case and establishing the truth in court.

Objective evidence can withstand scrutiny and be trusted by judges, juries, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Objective forensic evidence allows for transparency and accountability in the investigative and legal processes. It enables independent experts to review and verify the evidence, reducing the potential for errors, manipulation, or bias. This ensures that the system operates with integrity and can be held accountable for its decisions.

In the documentaries you watched this week, what outside factors might have been at play during the investigation of the case and how might they have influenced the case and the detectives’ investigation?

In "The Central Park Five" documentary:

The intense media coverage and public outcry for swift justice in the Central Park jogger case exerted significant pressure on the detectives and the investigation. This external pressure may have influenced the detectives' decision-making and led to tunnel vision, focusing solely on the narrative of the Central Park Five's guilt.

The case occurred in a racially charged environment, with strong biases against young Black and Hispanic males. These biases, both within the police force and society at large, may have influenced the detectives' perception of the suspects and their willingness to consider alternative explanations or suspects.

In "Amanda Knox" documentary:

The media coverage surrounding the Amanda Knox case was sensationalized and often presented a biased narrative, creating a hostile environment for the investigation. The media's portrayal of Knox as guilty before her trial could have influenced the detectives' approach and potentially affected the investigation's objectivity.

The Amanda Knox case took place in Italy, where the criminal justice system and investigative practices may differ from those in other countries. Cultural differences, including language barriers, legal procedures, and investigative norms, could have influenced the detectives' investigation and potentially impacted the case's outcome.

Could these factors/bias have been prevented? How so?

Detectives and investigators should receive comprehensive training on recognizing and mitigating biases, including racial bias, media influence, and cultural differences. Increased awareness can help them make more objective decisions and maintain impartiality.

Implementing mechanisms for independent oversight, such as external review boards or independent prosecutors, can help provide checks and balances in high-profile cases.

Developing and implementing standardized protocols and procedures for investigations can help ensure consistency and fairness.

Encouraging responsible journalism and accurate reporting is crucial in preventing media bias and the creation of prejudiced narratives.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think you'd make a good investigator? Why or why not? What could potentially go wrong if an investigator relies on their knowledge from TV on how to conduct an investigation?

Why must we prevent failed forensic evidence from being used in a trial?

I find the field of investigation intriguing, and while I have a great interest in it, I am unsure if I would make a good investigator. Becoming an investigator requires a combination of skills, knowledge, and personal attributes. While I possess certain qualities such as attention to detail, critical thinking, and curiosity, there are other aspects that I need to develop further, such as experience in forensic analysis and the ability to handle high-pressure situations.

One major concern with relying on TV portrayals of investigations is the potential for misinformation and skewed expectations. If an investigator solely relies on their knowledge from TV shows, several things could go wrong during an investigation. Firstly, TV shows often compress the timeline, making it seem like complex cases can be solved quickly. In reality, investigations can take weeks, months, or even years to gather evidence and reach a conclusion. Failing to understand this reality could lead to unrealistic expectations and premature judgments. Another issue is the misrepresentation of forensic techniques and their capabilities. TV shows often exaggerate the accuracy and speed of forensic analysis, leading investigators to expect instantaneous and conclusive results. In reality, forensic analysis is a meticulous process that requires proper training, adherence to protocols, and careful interpretation of results. Relying solely on TV knowledge may lead to an overreliance on certain techniques or misinterpretation of results, potentially compromising the integrity of the investigation.

Preventing failed forensic evidence from being used in a trial is crucial to ensuring a fair and just legal system. Failed forensic evidence can lead to wrongful convictions or the acquittal of guilty individuals, both of which undermine the principles of justice. When forensic evidence is inaccurate, unreliable, or improperly collected or analyzed, it can significantly impact the outcome of a trial. It is essential to prevent the use of such evidence by implementing rigorous quality control measures, ensuring proper training and proficiency of forensic analysts, and encouraging the use of validated scientific methodologies.

# data[].attributes.body
How are the findings of the article we read this week applicable to courtroom trials? What is the end result that potential jurors are gaining from CSI and TV shows like it? Why is that problematic? Can you think of 1-2 things that you learned directly from non-news mass media sources that you’ve used in your life? When using those 1-2 things, did you find them to be accurate?
Crime investigation TV shows like CSI often present a highly idealized and unrealistic portrayal of forensic science and crime-solving processes. These shows tend to focus on high-tech tools, quick results, and a clear resolution within a short period. Jurors who regularly watch these shows may develop exaggerated expectations of scientific evidence and forensic techniques in real-life trials.
The articles argue that exposure to CSI and similar TV shows can lead potential jurors to have inflated expectations for scientific evidence in courtroom trials. They may expect to see advanced forensic techniques, such as DNA analysis, fingerprint matching, or sophisticated crime scene reconstruction, even when such evidence is not relevant or available in a particular case. The unrealistic portrayal of forensic science on TV shows can create several difficult problems in the courtroom. First, it can lead jurors to undervalue other evidence that do not align with their TV-influenced expectations.

The end result that potential jurors gain from shows like CSI is an inflated belief in the power and reliability of scientific evidence. This can lead to unrealistic expectations and a skewed perception of how criminal trials work in real life. It may also create a bias toward certain types of evidence and influence jurors to make decisions based on their preconceived notions rather than a careful evaluation of the evidence presented in court.
In most crime shows that I have watched I can you usually see DNA analysis happening quickly, with investigators obtaining results within a matter of hours or minutes. However, in real life, DNA analysis is a complex process that requires specialized equipment and can take days or weeks to complete. Overall, The portrayal of DNA analysis as an immediate procedure is a fictional concept propagated for the purpose of storytelling.

# data[].attributes.body
Question: 8; Integration: 8; Expansion: 4; Writing: 6; Word limit: 4. Nice job discussing the class content and how that relates to how the CJS operates. While you do some application work, I would like to see less discussion in which you summarize the class content and more discussion where you apply and critically consider the implications of the class content. Also, you need to adjust your settings so that I can provide a place for your grade. Lastly, please make sure the max grade in the settings 34 points (I know the video says 15 – that’s a holdover from a part semester).

# data[].attributes.body
Where is memory and learning relevant in the legal and criminal justice system? How can it “mess up” the system’s normal operations?

Memory is crucial in eyewitness testimony, as it relies on an individual's ability to accurately recall and recount details of a crime. Inaccurate or flawed eyewitness testimony can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals, potentially undermining the system's operations.

Legal professionals, including judges and attorneys, rely on their knowledge of legal precedents and case law to make informed decisions and arguments. Memory and learning play a crucial role in understanding and applying legal principles effectively. Inaccurate interpretations or lack of knowledge can lead to incorrect judgments or faulty legal arguments.

Jurors, who are responsible for evaluating evidence and reaching a verdict, rely on their memory and learning abilities during trial proceedings. Jurors must remember and understand complex legal instructions, recall testimonial evidence, and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Errors in memory or understanding can influence a juror's decision-making process and potentially impact the outcome of a case.

How might a person’s understanding of the roles of the players in the criminal justice system (e.g. judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, jury, law enforcement, etc.) impact their ability to be an objective juror on a case?

If a person has a deep understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each player, they might be more likely to approach the case with a balanced perspective. They may have insight into the specific duties and limitations of each participant, which could aid in evaluating the arguments presented and understanding the legal instructions given by the judge.

If someone holds strong biases or misconceptions about the roles and responsibilities of the players, it could affect their ability to be an objective juror. Biases or preconceived notions about law enforcement, defense attorneys, prosecutors, or judges may influence their decision-making process, leading to subjective judgments rather than an objective evaluation of the evidence presented.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, I'm Terrisha Edwards and I am criminal justice major with a concentration in Homeland Security and a minor in migration studies and computer information systems.