Sarah Kamil
Ryan Griffith
English 124
Oct. 24, 2017
Does our Justice System Really Establish Justice?
The American Justice system was established in the first thirteen colonies even before
establishment of the United State constitution. The Justice system was needed, and till this day,
is still needed to ensure equity and fairness of many different law cases between people. While
the justice system intention always is to establish justice, people’s intention on the other hand is
always to prove they are innocent and right. Director Errol Morris tell the story of Randal Adams
and David Harris, two strangers that were accused for the murder of a police man in the middle
of Dallas county in his investigating documentary film, The Thin Blue Line. Morris displayed the
story of Adams and Harris to his viewers in way that implies Adams is innocent by exposing the
viewers to too many details surrounding the case, and supporting evidence that not only shows
that Adam is innocent but hint to the fact that Harris was guilty and that the corrupt justice
system in Dallas county. Through colors, alignment of events, and reenactments of the murder
details, Morris succeed in sending messages to the viewers that Adams was innocent and
enhance their ability to focus on the evidence and conclude the reality of the identity of the real
killer. In addition, Morris, indirectly arose his viewers distrust in the justice system and shows
that it could be bias.
Morris enhances his viewers distrust in the justice system by juxtaposing interviews that
carried contradictory testimonies. One prime example is the two different testimonies of Adams
and Gut Rose. The viewers see Adams first and hear his testimony about his interview with
detective Gus Rose, Adams narrate “…he had a confession he wanted me to sign… I told him I
couldn’t … there is no way I can sign that, he left and came back after ten minutes and throw a
pistol on the table….” The viewers also hear Adams saying that Rose asked him to pick up the
pistol and he refused, then they started looking at each other’s and Rose started threatening him
by the pistol to sign the confession, Adam refused again and Rose had no choice either he kills
Adam or forget the signature, so he forgot about the signature. During his testimony, Adams
appeared nervous and frightened as he recalls his memories of the interview with Rose, his
emotions emphasized viewers trust in Adam’s testimony. Furthermore, Morris created fragments
of reenactment of the interview that cut in-between Adams testimony to help the viewers
visualize Adams testimony better. On the other hand, the viewers saw a juxtapose of Rose
interview, in which Rose proclaimed his testimony about his interview with Adams in which he
described it as “casual friendly conversation” but clearly, it wasn’t any friendly. Morris had
established his argument through his immediate juxtaposing of Adams and Rose testimonies, and
the reenactment fragments of the interview, which enhanced the viewers believe that the justice
system is corrupt at that time.
Furthermore, Morris continue to build the viewers distrust in the justice system when he
presented the false eye witnesses interview in the film. The viewers see the first two eye
witnesses, Mrs. and Mr. Miller, who claimed that they drove by the incident location at the time
of the shooting. The viewers then see an interviewed of Adams’s lawyer, who was describing
what happened in the court when the eye witnesses arrived to give their testimony. The lawyer
described Mrs. Miller testimony and how she claimed that she saw Randal Adams shooting the
police officer while pointing at him with her figure. The viewers also see a juxtapose of Mrs.
Miller interview then followed the lawyer interview immediately, Mrs. Miller started by
describing her childhood desire for becoming a detective, she also adds on that she likes always
to help in crime detecting. While presenting Mrs. Miller interview, Morris cuts in-between her
interview and shows clips of detective scenes while she was speaking. As a result of that, the
viewers of the film will suspect that the eyewitness is not reliable as she shows her big
imagination and desire to be involved in such cases.
Furthermore, the viewers see a second interview with the Ms. Miller, who stated, “So we
heard backfire cracks or something when we drove over the bridge then I was thinking who does
backfire cracks at this time of the year.” Immediate after, the viewers see a juxtapose of his wife
interview, she stated “It was really dark, and it was cold, it was really hard to see in that car but
his window was down, the driver window was down, and this is how I got such a good look.”
Morris cuts again to present to the viewers her husband again stating “we couldn’t see anything
inside it was kind of shallow, the car was dark blue…. He had a mustache that’s all I could see.”
Comparing the two interviews of Mrs. and Ms. Miller and Mrs. Miller testimony in the court
clearly shows that the two of them did not see the same thing and yet claiming that they were
inside the same car, in the same light and weather conditions, and drove by the incident car. This
adds on to the suspiciousness in their testimony and make it questionable, yet the court still
believes it without considering those elements. Morris was able to clearly present these elements
through sequencing clips of their interviews that compared how they recalled their memories of
each part of the incident. Through presenting the suspicious elements of the eye witnesses that
resulted in convicting Randall Adams with the murder crime, the viewers see how the corrupt
justice system had relied on unreliable and suspicious testimonies of these witnesses.
Not only did Morris build our distrust in the justice system, but also made his viewers be
in favor of the innocence of Adams by viewing him as a trustworthy individual. The viewers see
an interviews of Adams first as he explains why he came in to Dallas and how he was heading
with his brother to California, the viewers hear Adams stating, “we got in in a hotel room on
Thursday’s night, Friday morning while I was eating eggs and drinking coffee I get a good job…
all these people are supposedly out of work and I am not in the town for half day and I get a
job….” Morris then makes Adams narrate the whole film. As a result of this, viewers tend to
believe what he says because he was the first speaking voice of the film presented himself as a
peaceful hard working person. Immediately after Adams finish his sentence in the first interview,
viewers see a juxtapose of David Harris interview as he started recalling how he ran away from
his home with his dad’s pistol and broke to the neighbor house and stole her care then he headed
to Dallas. As the viewers see and hear Harris recalling these events, they tend to not believe him
for the rest of the movies since he presented himself as irresponsible teenager that allow himself
to steal and break into people houses. Morris purposely made this juxtaposing to make the
viewers comparison of Adams and Harris personality clear, that Adam was the hard working,
peaceful man and Harris was uncontrollable violent teenager. Morris successfully made his
viewers favor and believe Adams over Harris.
After all, Morris had lead his viewers to a clear resolution of this case, and a distrust in
the justice system. However, writer Richard Sherwin introduces his readers to the postmodern
challenge that drew the light toward the unnoticeable elements that complicated the obvious truth
ones see without struggle, and ignite one’s thoughts about the hidden truth. Those acausal
elements led his readers to became unable to distinguish between the modern and postmodern
world, rethink the clear conclusion, and became suspicious of the reality they received
witnessing the incident events in the Thin Blue Line movie. Sherwin, by addressing the messy
details of the movie, had created a challenge for the viewers to draw a clear conclusion of the
case.
Sherwin began by addressing one of ambiguities in the case; the age difference between
Adams and Harris. Why was a twenty–eight years old drinking beer, smoking pot, and watching
soft porn movies with a sixteen years old boy? The time Adams spent with Harris doing socially
unacceptable activities suggest that there was more to consider that just the two of them happen
to meet each other’s and spend the day together. The readers now wonder what kind of benefit
would a friendship of a twenty-eight man with a sixteen years old man offer. Yet Sherwin
suggest that there could have been some type of sexual activity between Adams and Harris that
they both are unwilling to admit. The reader may think that it is maybe more socially acceptable
that Adams could admit a murder rather than homosexual activities with a teenager. The readers
now are left with so many speculations toward the case that may lead them to disregard the linear
elements presented by Morris and think more in depth to get to the real truth.
Another ambiguity that Sherwin suggested is Adams’s blackout and lack of remembering
what happened between the period of time he was driving onto Inwood road and his arrival at the
motel where he and his Brother had stayed in? Sherwin asked, “Did he really forget?” (121).
This lack of remembering such an important detail that may make the scenario of Adams story at
that night make the readers question if missing such details was purposely done or Adams did
really forget? After considering this nonlinear element presented by Sherwin, the readers now are
more suspicious and willing to speculate the case.
Human nature favors rationality and clear resolution, rather than complications and
messy truth. Morris had succeeded in siding the viewers’ judgment in his favor by presenting an
endless amount of linear elements. Sherwin also explains that human nature favor clarity over
messiness, causal thinking over common sense, and denial to frame the messy details seeking the
easy and clear ones. Perhaps society think every think presented to them should make sense,
making conclusions and judgments considering only the elements that present simple and fast
resolution to them while ignoring the messiness in the truth.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment