The Innocence Project launched a campaign to use DNA to clear people who had been wrongfully imprisoned. More than 300 people have been freed due to the organization’s efforts since then. More significantly, it has made countless excellent documentaries about the shortcomings of the US criminal justice system available to the rest of the globe. It seems that US police forces are losing the public’s trust, given that they are the antagonists in all non-fiction movies. One such documentary is Making a Murderer. The documentary tells the story of Steven Avery, who served 18 years for a rape he did not commit ( Demos and Ricciardi, 2). He sued the county and several of its officials for $36 million for his first arrest-related actions. He would later, nevertheless, face further charges and be found guilty. This time, it was the rape and murder of local photojournalist Teresa Halbach. Brendan Dassey, Avery’s nephew, was also found guilty of participating in the murder. The documentary examines the problems and practices in the Manitowoc County sheriff’s office that contributed to Avery’s conviction as it follows the trial ( Demos and Ricciardi, 24:12). This leads to a heated discussion regarding whether Avery actually killed Halbach or whether he was falsely imprisoned or perhaps set up to commit the crime.
Police misconduct allegations plagued this case. They violate the ethical standards that guide how the police, sheriff, investigative team, and court system carry out their responsibilities to citizens (Grussing & Allison, 7). In episode one of season one, the plot centers on the young man Steve Avery, who receives an 18-year sentence after being wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and rape by the police and the legal system. Steve, who was 23 years old when arrested in 1985, received an 18-year sentence before being freed in 2003.
The situation in which Steve finds himself might be characterized as a long-standing animosity between him and his cousin Sandra. She persistently spreads unfavorable rumors and tales about Steve and his wife on the streets ( Demos and Ricciardi, 42:14). It is clear from the film that Sandra is a deputy sheriff and has strong connections to those who are influential in the county’s court system. The conspiracy between Sandra Morris and Judy Duvorak was considerably aided by Avery’s choice to confront Sandra Morris and attempt to frighten her (Grussing & Allison, 12). The long-standing animosity motivates Sandra to take advantage and put Avery in problems. The only way she can accomplish this is to leverage her friendship with her close friends in law enforcement. She devises a scheme that will result in Steve’s arrest, conviction, and sentencing to remove him from their daily lives. As a result, the report written by Judy and Sandra is wholly unethical under police ethical standards.
The deputy sheriff had violated police ethics by fraudulently accusing Avery and leading Penny Beernsten to believe that Steve had sexually assaulted her. Police are not supposed to accuse or mistreat the people. They are there to protect and serve (Rodriguez et al., 4). Since the people tasked with protecting the citizens’ interests violate their rights, the interests of the citizens are not adequately represented in this film. Due to Sandra’s false report, Avery was found guilty and sentenced for a mistake he did not commit, allowing the criminal to roam free in the streets.
This incident demonstrates the abuse of police authority by numerous police officials. Sheriffs and administrative police disregard ethical principles and negatively affect Steve’s case. Given that it is the offspring of all immoral behavior in a state, corruption is viewed as unacceptable in democracies. The state’s corrupt police apparatus, like the one in the narrative, makes it so bad. Sandra manipulates Judy into making a fake complaint against Avery to appease her friend (Grussing & Allison, 23). Steve is released after the DNA from the lab finally proves his innocence.
According to the defense team, the evidence discovered in the yard and bedroom was placed there. The police actively took part. The DNA found on the car keys and the clean fingerprints do not support the theory that Avery killed the victim (Rodriguez et al., 16). In this situation, it is unethical for police to fabricate evidence to convict an innocent person. It is immoral for the cops to enter Steve’s bedroom and leave the keys there without the owner of the apartment’s consent or approval. By rendering unjust decisions that go against judicial norms, the judges, in this case, are perceived as being biased.
The law enforcement officials engage in unethical behavior, aiding the investigation and pressuring Brandon to confess. Additionally, Brandon has learning disabilities. This means that he lacks the capacity to understand precisely what they mean. This clearly shows that they took advantage of him because of his condition. Given that there is zero evidence to support Brandon’s claim that he helped Steve kill the woman, it is unlawful to convict him.
Support for the Documentary’s Conclusion
After watching the documentary, the only thing it is reasonably sure about is that Avery was framed entirely. The involvement of the police, the investigation team, and the court system impacted the case. Additionally, they behaved unethically while performing their duties. The story of Steven Avery is both an outlier and a symbol of the systemic injustice that permeates society (Grussing & Allison, 8). Avery’s case is unique because people might have wanted to accuse him of committing a crime he did not commit. The root reasons for injustice frequently resemble Penny Beerntsen, the assault plaintiff in Avery’s initial trial, who erroneously claimed that Avery was her assailant.
The investigation team looking into Steve’s case played a part in keeping the evidence hidden. The inquiry team cannot demonstrate insufficient evidence for the court to convict Avery (Rodriguez et al., 14). Additionally, the team refuses to identify the individuals responsible for Steve’s case. Since there was no concrete evidence that Steve had committed the crime, the judiciary was perverted to render a decision. The DNA from the lab was also provided incorrectly for the first time, and the court rejected it. It is unethical to caution staff not to share information about the issue while an inquiry is ongoing. Instead, they were to be counseled to help the investigating team acquire accurate information regarding the corrupt judicial and police systems. The investigation’s findings were tampered with to keep Steve from winning his legal battle with the county.
Works Cited
Demos, Moira, and Laura Ricciardi. “Making a Murderer.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 18 Dec. 2015, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.
Grussing, Allison. “Steven Avery, A Case Study: Making a Murderer or Making an Identity.” Crime, media, culture 16.1 (2020): 81–96.
Rodriguez, Lourdes, et al. “Making a biased jury decision: Using the Steven Avery murder case to investigate potential influences in jury decision-making.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8.4 (2019): 429.
write