Honors- CSI and the CJS Reflections by Esmeralda Rivera

What do you already know about the criminal justice system? Are there things that you've heard/learned/read that you're not sure are true/correct about the criminal justice system?

river193 — 2024-01-19 00:39:21 UTC

What I already know about the criminal justice system:

It is a very complicated system that applies certain laws and actions to different situations.
I feel that it attempts to be holistic to the citizens' situations and offenders' crimes, but tends to fail in some cases.
It is a system that affects the country as a whole, not only the convicts, lawyers, judges, victims, or jurors.
It also changes depending on which state you live in, which I find a bit disturbing, since some crimes could be rightfully or wrongfully punished just depending on the state they are in.

Things I've heard/learned/read about the CJS that I'm not sure about:

Of course, I've heard many controversies that the system is rigged. I've seen cases where it seems true, but I'm sure that there is justice served in other cases.
I've seen situations where the CJS seems just and fair, but others cry foul and say it's not, that we were lucky in this case, etc. It definitely has prevailed in many cases, but there are cases when it doesn't.
There are times when I question the CJS when I see those convicted of murder get off on parole even though they were proven guilty, or victims who killed in self-defense be locked up for longer than felons. I do question why that happens and if it really is fair.

How can what we know and what we've learned about those in the criminal justice system (e.g., our stereotypes of people who engage in crime) affect our ability to be unbiased in our knowledge? What impact does this have on the operations of and public beliefs in the CJS?

river193 — 2024-01-26 03:40:14 UTC

I believe that stereotypes and prejudice definitely have a role in the corruption of the criminal justice system. People that are prejudiced against someone because of their race may already feel inclined to a negative opinion and possible negative verdict for a defendant of color. A jury with people that are judgmental about women may victim-blame a female sexual assault victim and be inclined to rule in favor of the accused. Even vice-versa, with the mindset that men 'cannot' be sexually assaulted— which is false— people may be inclined to believe the accused is innocent of the crime, especially if the accused is female, since women are statistically more likely to be assaulted by men. While evidence, witness testimonies, and jury deliberation can reverse these prejudices and help in shaping the jurors' perspectives on the case, prejudice is definitely a factor that can either help or condemn innocent people; mostly the latter. The public's voice can also affect the outcome if a large majority is prejudiced against one of the parties and demand they be condemned/acquitted regardless of the evidence.

How might a person’s understanding of the roles of the players in the criminal justice systems (e.g. victim, defendant, judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, jury, law enforcement, etc.) and the stereotypes associated with those roles (e.g., race, gender, power, etc.) impact their ability to be an objective juror on a case? Give two examples of how the expectations might be beneficial and two examples of how the expectations might be detrimental.

river193 — 2024-02-02 01:02:32 UTC

Benefits:

In understanding the roles of players like the victim, defendant, judge, etc., the jurors will know which party will receive justice based on their decision. For example, in a murder case, the jurors will know the victim will receive justice if their killer is put behind bars. They will also know that the defendant could be either guilty or innocent, and they will be the ones to decide if they deserve to be in prison for their crime.
The jurors will know which parties will be more likely to be innocent or guilty. For example, in a domestic abuse case where a man is convicted of physically abusing a woman, the jury can gauge the situation by evaluating the parties and their roles in the case. If the woman is visibly worn down by bruises and scars, while the man is strongly-built with no bruises, that can serve as some evidence that the defendant is guilty.

Detriments:

Knowing stereotypes about people can cloud jurors' initial first impression and affect their ability to evaluate the case and evidence properly, whether consciously or subconsciously. For example, in the case where a black man is accused of stealing, they may base their perspective off of the racial stereotype that "black people steal" and already see him as guilty, even if he isn't. Racial bias can definitely influence their opinions.
Knowing the roles of the players can also affect their judgment of the case. For example, in the case of a police officer accusing someone of attacking him; even if it was the police officer who initiated the attack or carried out police brutality, the jury may be more inclined to believe the officer because of his position and authority.

How might our experiences from what we watch on television create demand characteristics that we would rely on in a real-life courtroom setting? How might those experiences also create cues for us to rely on in terms of determining witness believability and credibility?

river193 — 2024-02-09 03:00:34 UTC

Despite many criticisms towards Hollywood and their lack of accuracy, the sensationalism and excitement behind a movie or TV episode can immerse us in an environment we know little to nothing about. If we are not knowledgeable in a certain field, seeing it portrayed on TV will be our first and possibly only experience in that field, giving us that first impression.

Once we enter a real courtroom for the first time, we will expect the case to be carried out the way it is on TV; perhaps we may expect lawyers to be aggressive and demanding towards witnesses, we may expect the "guilty" parties to be obviously nervous and fidgety, or we may expect witnesses to break down in tears on the stand when under pressure. While that can happen, it is not accurate and doesn't represent all real court cases. A nervous witness or party doesn't make a guilty person. A non-aggressive lawyer doesn't make a good or bad lawyer. Witnesses aren't insensitive or stone-hearted just because they don't get emotional on the stand. We need to keep this in mind, especially if we are jurors, so we don't wrongly judge anyone just because of what we saw in Hollywood.

Can you think of 3-4 things that you learned directly from non-news mass media sources that you’ve used in your life? When using those 3-4 things, did you find them to be accurate?

river193 — 2024-02-16 04:24:24 UTC

Doctors reacting to medical dramas on YouTube

I rely on YouTube videos uploaded by certified medical practitioners to know more about the human body. Some do reactions to medical dramas to correct medical accuracy. I see this as a White Coat Syndrome example: I know the doctors are reliable because they have displayed their credentials on their profiles, made video blogs of their daily routines in hospitals, and have appeared on news channels and certified medical websites as real doctors. They also explain medical accuracy and advice with confidence, while also making it easy to digest for an audience of laypeople. Their personalities are usually very likable, attracting large followings to their channels.

Historical drama films about US History

Growing up in a different country, one of the ways my mother taught me US History was through historical films or dramas. I watched films about figures like Anne Frank, Hellen Keller, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks, and others. I am aware that the films may not be 100% accurate, but they did give me a lot of information on our history and important events that shaped America as we know it today.

Movies that portray the foster care system

I have seen movies and dramas with characters portraying foster kids or orphans. These had been my only sources for knowing about the foster care system before I decided to do my own proper research. I quickly discovered how inaccurate many movies are and corrected misconceptions I had about the system.

Are there potential problems with TV shows inaccurately portraying the criminal justice system and its procedures/protocols? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

river193 — 2024-02-23 03:44:23 UTC

As discussed in class, potential problems that arise from these shows are the products of the CSI effect and Tech effect. Impressionable audiences may be inclined to believe these shows accurately portray the CJS and let this belief interfere with their duties as jurors. However, it really depends on the quality of the show. A realistic-looking, well-acted, and well-written show is more likely to "fool" audiences about their accuracy than a more dramatic, badly-acted show with overly-contrived plots. Audiences are less likely to believe a show is accurate if the quality and/or budget is low. On another point, with the uptick of social media, and more professionals entering the influencer sphere, there is more content of professionals reacting to shows related to their field and correcting the mistakes and inaccuracies there are. For instance, I watch a YouTuber named Doctor Mike, who is a certified medical professional. Many of his videos involve him reacting to movies and TV shows involving medical content, especially medical dramas such as Grey's Anatomy or The Good Doctor, and commenting on how medically accurate these portrayals are. While the CSI effect is still a problem, with how this kind of "corrective" content is being popularized, there are more chances of the general audience being educated properly. It is most likely going to be a smaller problem than it was a decade ago.

Do you personally have the qualities necessary to be a good investigator? Why or why not? (Be honest.) What could potentially go wrong if an investigator relies on their knowledge from TV on how to conduct an investigation? What are the short-term and long-term effects of that?

river193 — 2024-03-01 01:22:13 UTC

I believe I would not be a good investigator because I have the tendency to either overanalyze or under analyze things. I feel I would skip over crucial parts of an investigation or focus on a detail that isn’t necessary to the investigation. I only have a basic knowledge of how criminal investigations work, and I wouldn’t have sufficient knowledge to actually carry one out.

In relying on knowledge purely from TV shows and portrayals of criminal investigations to carry out a real criminal investigation, there would be a lot of flaws and holes in the process. This kind of investigator could skip crucial parts of an investigation and miss important evidence. They could also unnecessarily spend resources on clues that don’t have relevance to the investigation. They could also disregard circumstantial or witness testimony completely in favor of forensic evidence, which would bring about the Tech Effect or CSI Effect. In the short-term, this could simply prolong the investigation and frustrate the system with delays. In the long-term, this could cause an investigation to have an incorrect result. With inaccurate data, a guilty criminal could be released, or an innocent person can be put behind bars, making these errors very dangerous. It’s important that an investigator be someone who is fully aware that TV portrayals of the CJS are never accurate to real life investigations.

How does the presence/likelihood of failed forensic evidence interact with the race and gender of the defendant? How can failed forensic evidence be prevented? Make sure you discuss failed forensic evidence and the race/gender of the defendant within the investigation and in the courtroom.

river193 — 2024-03-08 04:04:56 UTC

In presenting incorrect forensic evidence, as well as insisting on using forensic evidence with no scientific backup, it could be a way to convince the jury to rule in favor of the prosecution. In an investigation, there have been incidents where investigators hyper-focus on one portion of evidence rather than all forensic evidence as a whole, already presenting holes in the process. In the courtroom, it could go one of two ways: the prosecution could convince the jury through the White Coat Syndrome or Tech Effect to rule in their favor, or the jury could doubt the prosecution due to their reliance on one piece of evidence and rule against them.

In the case of Julie Rea, it was the former; the prosecution built a convincing argument centered around blood spatter patterns to convince the jury of her guilt. Her case was filled with heavily biased statements towards women, including that of her ex-husband’s, who said she considered aborting her son at the age of 17. This testimony was later confirmed false. Other witnesses commented that Julie “didn’t cry”, suggesting a lack of “womanly emotion” expected from a grieving mother. The prosecution also could have doubted her martial arts abilities to spar with the intruder that killed her son.

In presenting solid scientific evidence in court, avoiding focusing on a single piece of evidence, and not allowing unconfirmed and unfounded evidence inside a courtroom, these mistakes can be avoided. Forensic science should focus on confirmed and proven science.

This week, you read a lot about how forensic evidence can be interpreted based on information not relevant to the forensic analysis itself. What are some ways that bias could be limited from influencing the analysis of forensic evidence? Why is it essential that forensic evidence is free from bias?

river193 — 2024-03-22 16:10:54 UTC

Some ways to avoid bias is to isolate jurors from the public, especially if the case is widely publicized, so they don’t have biased opinions on the case. Another way is to be very selective in the juror selection process and choose jurors with the most unbiased backgrounds and viewpoints. Prosecutors can educate jurors on common biases related to the case and debunk them.

It is essential to avoid bias in forensic evidence because bias is one of the defining factors of a verdict. Bias can be the decider between life, death, incarceration, or freedom, for a defendant, whether they truly are guilty or innocent. To achieve justice and reach the correct verdict, everyone involved in the criminal justice system, from forensic scientists to jurors, must put their personal biases aside and evaluate everything as objectively as possible. Bias can wrongly put an innocent person in jail for life, or even end their life, and let guilty people go free. It can be very dangerous, since it is a powerful influence, usually manifesting in unconscious ways.

In the Central Park Five documentary, what outside factors (e.g., societal trends), including characteristics about the accused themselves (e.g., demographics, prior history, etc.), might have been at play during the investigation of the case and how might they have influenced the case and the detectives’ investigation? Could these factors/bias have been prevented? How so?

river193 — 2024-03-29 02:52:36 UTC

The media and press definitely exaggerated details and exacerbated public opinion against the Central Park Five. Coupled with the fact that they were accompanying other teenagers who committed crimes against people in Central Park, as well as being from areas that had a high crime rate, it was easy for the New York populace to turn against them and not have a doubt that they were guilty, including those in their own community. The high crime rate at the time was also a powerful factor in bias against these five teenagers, since many of these crimes were committed by people in their community, of their same race. There was a strong prejudice against the boys and their community and neighborhood. The public was led to believe that anything that came out of their areas was dangerous and horrible. Central Park, being a “sacred" place for New Yorkers, was tainted by this horrifying crime, and to know that this place had been “defiled” in that way enraged New York. That anger burned against the boys and pressured authorities to solve the case quickly. While these factors are very powerful, the news and media coverage made it worse than it could have been, and without such attention, the public could’ve been calmer and less influential to the jury and the investigators. Without the exaggeration from the media, more people could’ve been more open-minded to the boys being coerced by the police.

This week, we focused on the ethics of forensic science, but also on the ethics inherent in investigations on the whole. Ethics in investigations implies an objectivity that is free from any bias. Why is it so important that those involved in a criminal investigation should be held to the highest ethical standards? Use Walter McMillian's case from the Just Mercy reading for this week (e.g., the Introduction to Chapter 4) to support your response.

river193 — 2024-04-04 23:14:51 UTC

It is important because in the criminal justice system, ethics can be the difference between life or death for many people. Ethics is what decides whether a guilty or innocent person will be executed or released. It is a great impact on the convicts’ and victims’ families, friends, and communities. When one has the power to decide whether someone lives or dies, ethics must be the most important factor, and the criminal justice system has this power, just as the medical field also deals with people’s lives.

In Walter McMillian’s case, ethics were not at its highest standard. Bias was a very heavy factor in deciding Walter’s sentence. Loopholes were exploited to serve the investigators’ personal biases, other people sharing the same biases were recruited as jurors, and testimonies from black and white witnesses supporting McMillian’s alibi were blatantly ignored. Ralph Myers was manipulated and abused into supporting a made-up story from the investigators in order to push their biases forward and support their careers with a speedy conclusion to two murders, both of which roused controversy against the criminal justice system from the public.

A man is on death row, taken away from his family and his life, to satisfy the investigators’ biases and further their careers and reputation. This is a clear example of why ethics are crucial in a criminal investigation.

What are the societal impacts resulting from mass incarceration, particularly on the black and brown communities from which people are disproportionately incarcerated? How do these impacts change our society as a whole? Make sure you reference both The 13th and Just Mercy in your discussion.

river193 — 2024-04-12 02:49:56 UTC

The black and brown communities, in seeing this disproportionate incarceration around them, will naturally develop a fear of possibly being incarcerated based on racial prejudices and stereotypes. People may feel paranoid or distrustful of the police or any law enforcement, and may fear that one day, one of their loved ones could also end up in prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being of the race assumed to commit crime.

Inside prisons, The 13^th demonstrated the abhorrent conditions that prisoners face, as well as the forced labor they are engaged in, with law enforcement using the exception that the 13^th Amendment outlined: only those convicted of crimes and sent to prison would be subject to forced labor. It is a chilling reflection of the antebellum America, showing predominantly black and brown prisoners in these conditions.

In Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson had a firsthand experience with prisoners, the living conditions they suffer in prisons, and the ripple effect arrests— especially wrongful ones— have on the community. While the community unites to comfort and strengthen each other, there is a fear that more and more of their loved ones would be taken away by Alabama’s law enforcement. The most palpable example is in Chapter 9, when the court uses officers and police dogs to intimidate the community at the McMillian hearing.

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are". 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.

river193 — 2024-04-19 02:44:56 UTC

I do not believe that justice was served in Walter’s case. While legally, justice was served in the sense that he was released from jail and cleared of the crime he didn’t commit, Walter’s life was completely altered by his 6-year sentence. Walter had to struggle and live with the trauma of being on death row for so long, paranoid that he would be sent back again, and his job and relationships with his friends and family suffered from the impact of his sentence and the affair that preceded that sentence. Many people that still believed Walter guilty endangered him, wanting to bring “justice” to Ronda Morrison’s family themselves, so Walter couldn’t even go to his own home for a while. It is a bittersweet feeling that he was released from death row physically, but mentally, emotionally, and socially, he was still in that jail cell waiting to die. On top of that, Walter was not given the compensation he needed, and only got some compensation after many legal battles. It showed that even though he was proven innocent, the people that accused him still wouldn’t change their perspectives or reflect on their mistakes. While to the world it seemed like justice was served, they would never understand the long-lasting trauma Walter was left with.

Why do you think this book is called Just Mercy? What impact did this book have on you?

river193 — 2024-04-26 14:26:25 UTC

I think it is called "Just Mercy" because it is just mercy that brings justice. Mercy and compassion, understanding the situation as a whole, would have benefited many of the prisoners Bryan interacted with, and made society better as a result. Bryan expresses many times that he seeks mercy for the prisoners he tries to help:

“I desperately wanted mercy for Jimmy Dill and would have done anything to create justice for him, but I couldn’t pretend that his struggle was disconnected from my own”; “In fact, there is a strength, a power even, in understanding brokenness, because embracing our brokenness creates a need and desire for mercy, and perhaps a corresponding need to show mercy. When you experience mercy, you learn things that are hard to learn otherwise” (Chapter 15). The perspective on mercy also correlates with Bryan's Christian faith, since God has mercy on humanity despite the many sins we commit. This is an attitude we should all take with each other, since none of us are "better" or "holier" than each other. We are all one and the same, and by showing mercy and compassion to people on death row, and fully understanding the circumstances of what happened, society can be better and heal better.

This book impacted me by opening my eyes to how the criminal justice system worked in the past and is working now. While we have made advancements, we still have many problems and flaws we need to work out to ensure justice to the American people. The book was refreshing, since on the news, I only ever heard one-sided perspectives on the system; it was either firmly against prisoners or firmly against police. This book offers more of a gray area, an authentic perspective to the CJS. These are events that truly happened that weren't altered by an agenda enforced by a news channel. I loved this book and I'm glad I was able to read it in class. I learned a lot about how the system works and I have been inspired to work harder towards showing mercy and compassion towards others.