Critical Investigation 02/12/16

How is institutional bias influencing the representations of certain groups and the Miscarriage of Justice?

What Impact does the influence have on the justice system, people with disabilities and the documentary genre?

Should there be more regulation on sites such as Netflix? (but not as much as the BBC)

To what extent does Making a Murderer illustrate institutional bias in TV documentary – particularly regarding disability and justice.

P1: Intro – To essay w/ disability and the miscarriage of justice (250-300)
‘A miscarriage of justice can result from non-disclosure of evidence by police or prosecution, fabrication of evidence, poor identification, overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony, unreliable confessions due to police pressure or psychological instability and misdirection by a judge during trial.’ (Life of Crime)

The miscarriage of justice has been around for arguably as long as the idea of justice has however it has only recently become a prominent subject within society for the 21st century. Initially, the colour of your skin has played a major factor throughout both reality and fiction but this is not where the line is drawn. Disability has always been a taboo subject dated back to even Greek Mythology where babies with a physical disfigurement (disability) would be left on a cliff to die. Actual acknowledgement of disability – both mentally and physically – was a major factor in the Victorian era particularly being referenced in literature. But, mainly with mental disabilities, there was always a relation to madness, witchcraft and the supernatural due to their lack of understanding or even fear of the unknown. Disability today is still often represented as supernatural and dangerous across a variety of media platforms. This could have the detrimental effect on people suffering as they may be feared or labelled/stigmatised, and even affects how they are approached by others due to predisposed ideas. Making a Murderer, although being narratively based on Stephen Avery and the two investigations, has made people more aware of certain injustices that are consequences of issues such as bias, ignorance, and prejudice. Recent developments in the Halbach case – the second case to be investigated in the documentary – has now resulted in a judge order to release Brendan Dassey where it was stated that "We believe the magistrate judge's decision that Brendan Dassey's confession was coerced by investigators, and that no reasonable court could have concluded otherwise, is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law,’ Although awareness has been created and a suggested positive result has come forth, Netflix are still in the firing line for being bias themselves.

(346)
P2: Intro to MaM w/ accusations – bias? – IGNITE PRESENTATION (300-350)
Making a Murderer is a TV Documentary created by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos and was a Netflix exclusive. The first episode solely explores Stephen Avery’s wrongful conviction over the brutal sexual assault of Penny Beerntsten in 1985. There is a lot of reference to police manipulation and the plantation of evidence – this is more suspicion based on actual evidence. However, one thing that particularly shocked me was KEN KRATZ’S CHECK solid belief that because his drawing, based on the description given by Beernsten, looked like Avery, he was automatically guilty despite DNA results stating otherwise.

It highlights an.……..
O Extreme Bias
O Vendetta against Avery
O Lack of regard for DNA testing.
The rest of the series focuses on the murder of Theresa Halbach.
Brendan Dassey – was convicted alongside Avery for the Murder of Theresa Halbach – However a judge ordered his release on Tuesday 15the November 2016. SKY ARTICLE (N&Q)
‘Court documents described Mr Dassey as a slow learner who has difficulty understanding language and speaking.’
reportedly has an IQ of 70, putting him at a fourth-grade reading level, so between that and the lack of an adult or lawyer present Dassey was lured into giving a false confession, according to Duffin.


There have been accusations that Netflix and the creators have been incredibly bias in terms of their presentation of Law enforcement – they are completely bad and are constantly stirring things up.
Dramatisation – through focusing on possibilities rather than the facts, I believe that because they were focusing a lot on Avery’s home and his parents/other relative they were trying to take a more domestic approach. Which would definitely give an explanation as to why there have been accusations stating that facts had been left out – however there is an argument to suggest that they weren’t fundamental to the investigation and trial so there was no reason to keep them in?

P3: LINK TO DASSEY – IQ e.t.c  - Textual analysis of interrogation scene?  (350)
(Traditions of a Documentary Genre.- Audience Theory)
P4: Judith Ward - Derek Bentley – Real life cases of the miscarriage of justice due to a mental disability. (250)
P5: Historical Text (300) - Thin Blue Line – Errol Morris - 1988
P6: Documentary as a genre – change and audiences. (300)
P7: Should there be more regulation? Traditonal Doc. BBC TRUST, OFCOM. (250)
P8: Conclusion. (100-200)
2300 WORDS