March 12, 2007
Below the Fold: Learning about Our Rights, or Lack of Them, on TV
CSI, Law and Order, 24, Cold Case Files, Without a Trace, Criminal Minds, The Shield, Crossing Jordan, The Wire. I learn a lot about life. For instance, there is evil, sometimes petty, sometimes monstrous, but always deadly. There is good: the police, the prosecutors, and their beleaguered, but heroic witnesses. Of course, there are the squealers, the snitches, the sleazeballs, or simply the entrapped that help get some portion of evil greater than their own off the street. Defense attorneys have pride of place in the evil paragon. They are sort of the Beelzebubs of the evil operations, scheming, unscrupulous, tricksters that made it so difficult for the do-gooders to defeat evil.
Sebastian Shark of CBS’ Shark, for example, is the most dangerous trickster of all, for he now applies his incomparable skills with the tools of evil to serve the good. He now puts evildoers, sometimes even his ex-clients, in jail. Once evil, he has morphed into someone good. The moral of his story is that the good must learn, or stronger still, must be a little evil to get evil off the streets. Justice is a result, not a process, for Shark. His young and beautiful lawyer posse is often revolted by his tactics, but the lesson they are taught by Shark is that evil must be used to ensure that good will triumph.
I prefer Orson Wells in Touch of Evil. Now there was evil incarnate, three hundred ugly pounds of it. Chomping a wet cigar, unshaven, clearly getting the better of his opponent, the goody-goody cop Charlton Heston whom he transforms into someone evil. Only Marlene Dietrich, the borderlands madam, took pity on Welles’ Hank Quinlan. Dietrich as Tanya was not exactly the hooker with a heart of gold. Instead she was the weary, cynical stable keeper for men like Wells whose peccadillos were her bread and butter. As Wells framed hundreds of suspects throughout his career, he had also hooked up with a sneaky, violent, dark-faced, Spanglish-speaking criminal Mexican gang, that he uses to break the mestizo and obviously uppity Heston, the proud husband of the blond-haired Janet Leigh whom the Mexicans kidnap and torture for good measure. Except for Leigh’s Susie, the damsel in distress, everyone else gets more evil, and some of the worst of them kill, die, or in Heston’s case sober up to the need to do evil in order to do good.
Well, that is the big lie – to do evil in order to do good – that TV tells us is the moral of our version of Crime and Punishment. The good must do evil so that the bad are caught, murdered, jailed, and/or sometimes executed.
What do we learn about our civil rights, good or evil as we are? What does TV tell us about the practice of criminal justice in the United States? More accurately, what does TV portray as everyday practice in our daily battle against crime?
The first lesson is that everyone is a suspect and their rights an impediment to uncovering evil. Your are supposed guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and every attempt you make to clear yourself or help the police out will be turned against you. You can be "liked" for a crime, not a compliment on your character or good looks, and become a suspect without knowing it. If and until you are arrested, they do not need to tell you that their "liking" you makes you a suspect in their book, until they find someone better.
So the second lesson is that it is better to remain silent. Cooperation is a mistake. Request a lawyer. If you have no lawyer (woe betide you if you are poor or like most people in America consider lawyers potential road kill), then ask to go home. Whatever you do, seek to avoid staying at the station house because that is where the tricks often occur.
At home, answer the door cautiously, as guns may be drawn, and never, never invite police into your house. If you do, you have invited them to grab up whatever they need for their case against you.
Suppose you are transformed from witness, to person of interest, to suspect. You are arrested. Take the warning seriously and say nothing once more. Ask immediately for a lawyer. Don’t cop an attitude, or they will clock you. A whack on the head or anywhere else on your body, so long as it leaves no bruises, is practically the duty of a morally outraged cop. It seems that the good cop is never quick enough to restrain the bad cop. Ask for aspirin as soon as you can, as you will bruise more easily, and perhaps shorten the beat down.
The good cop, bad cop routine is still the order of the day, and amazing grace at least on TV, seems to work. The good cop is constantly asking you to help them out, or suggesting you help yourself by getting the evil off your chest. It will go easier if you confess now or if you give up your partner in crime. Beware the prisoner’s dilemma: it works too.
I personally can’t understand how cooperating and confessing makes things easier. The image of the prison with which they threaten the accused is an inferno. Sweet young things, male or female, are threatened with gang rape or being sold as sex slaves for a pack of cigarettes. HIV infection lurks in every sex act. The middle-aged are told they will die miserably in jail.
Most criminal indictments end in plea bargains – 85% of them. You may be surrendering your right to self-defense, but your odds don’t improve through jury trials, which for murder suspects ends 85% of the time in conviction.(If you are African-American, please note that you are three and a half times more likely to be convicted of murder through trial by jury than your white counterparts.) But Law and Order’s "Maximum Sam" Waterson’s .750 batting average does represent reality: crime usually leads to punishment. Much of the success, for better or worse, owes to being incriminated before you are arrested, and according to TV, way before you even know you’re "liked" for the crime.
But who knows about innocence? Northwestern University’s Center for Wrongful Convictions found in 2001 that of 86 persons wrongfully convicted and exonerated, 53% were convicted on the basis of mistaken or perjured eyewitness testimony; 20% were convicted regardless of police and prosecutorial misconduct; another 12% were convicted with jailhouse informant testimony; another 9% on the basis of coerced or false confessions; and finally (take that CSI!), another 11% were convicted with what the center calls false or misleading "junk" science. Illinois in 2003 found so many wrongful murder convictions in their midst that the 17 defendants on death row were exonerated, and then Governor Ryan commuted the death sentences of 160 others. The wrongful conviction movement has spread throughout the country and the convicted in many cases exonerated, but this is seldom seen on TV. Instead, alla Cold Case Files, the past offers up its old murderers for the convicting.
This brings us back to what we learn on TV. It is not the truth of the matter, but a rather well-set and coherent collection of ideas about crime and punishment in America. It is rather like the old westerns with good and evil starkly portrayed, and the Indians vested with few, if any rights. This is no Dirty Harry syndrome any more, as in cops hampered by court decisions, and the guilty escaping because of our fecklessness in the face of evil. No, the cops usually catch the culprit under circumstances of their choosing, rather than those once prescribed by the Constitution. If they get it wrong, there is little recourse. Old Gil Grissom, in the recollection of this CSI-addicted writer, has only once worked to exonerate someone whom his office has wrongly convicted.
Outside of the tube and bumping around the everyday world, people are wrongly convicted through abuse, sloppiness, or the rush to judgment. If you are a person of color, watch out especially. All of you whose income falls beneath that of the well-heeled won’t get a snide, slick, and successful defense lawyer. There is no Shark in your future. Instead, you may get an over-worked and under-paid public defender, or a lawyer whom you cannot pay enough to do a really thorough job, given the endless complications of justice in America. Public advocates can only save the few and the really endangered.
An occasional jury will jump the rails and find for a defendant believed to have been treated badly or wrongly, or who they believe to be innocent. In Boston last year, several juries in a row refused to believe police testimony and found defendants not guilty.
But if the TV is about our beliefs, then it seems that we believe that evil is back big time, and evil criminals are caught and punished, even if by hook or crook, and this is really okay. And most of us, me included when I leave my rational world and head into the realms of American authoritarian fantasies, really enjoy it.
... Did I forget your favorite crime show? I confess. Sometimes during a Thursday night seminar, my mind wanders to the question: Will I get home in time for CSI, the real one in Nevada with Gil Grissom and the rest of the gang? Sometimes, I have to content myself with a killing in Miami or New York.
Posted by Michael Blim at 12:08 AM | Permalink




Comments
Obviously you have never actually watched The Wire.
Posted by: Olaf Radiator | Mar 12, 2007 10:04:55 AM
Well put, Mike. I have been addicted to Law and Order: Special Victims Unit for some time (luckily they have about ten episodes of it on every day on various channels!), but I only recently noticed that the law is often portrayed as an impediment to putting bad guys (and gals) behind bars. Many times the plots revolve around ways that the State's Attorney must devise to get around silly bureaucratic rules like not being able to search an obvious child-rapist's house without a warrant. Like in the war on terror, fear-mongering is the most effective weapon, as in "How many more children must be hurt before we do something?!!" The heroes of the show often heroically put their careers on the line, risking dismissal from the police force, disbarment, etc., to break or at least bend the rules in their zeal to jail criminals. In other words, the real danger to decent people is the law! (They also develop endearingly close emotional bonds with the victims of crime and their families, something quite contrary to my own dealings with real-life cops.) But somehow all this didn't bother me much until I read your piece.
You've fleshed all this out nicely. Thanks.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Mar 12, 2007 10:37:31 AM
If you view law as modern mythology, then it is easier to see the appeal of all the dozens and dozens of shows and movies about it.
The modern-day Odyssey is a team of cops riding the high seas of street-crime trying to catch the golden perp.
Posted by: beajerry | Mar 12, 2007 10:49:51 AM
I've often complained about how Law and Order is more a how to manual for dummies about how to circumvent constitutional rights than about crime and punishment. There's the great line in Touch of Evil: "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." I guess the world has a secret wish to live in a police state, and it may be getting its wish.
But I have to agree with Olaf. The Wire doesn't fit in all this at all. There are plenty of scenes of police brutality, judicial misconduct on the DA's side, political corruption. (The corrupt union in the second season was probably the most sympathetic organization in the whole series.) The Wire's is a world of moral gray.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 12, 2007 11:19:39 AM
Excellent commentary. One of the TV ads for Law & Order even mentions something about the cops playing fast & loose with the rights of accused, as if that were a good thing. They don't word it quite that way and it's meant as humorous quip, but still . . .
Posted by: Bill Ectric | Mar 12, 2007 12:57:55 PM
The first seasons of Law & Order did a much better job balancing rights of the accused and those of the prosecutors. There are episodes where the falsely accused guy has his rights trampled all over, only for the mishandling to eventually allow the real criminal to get away scot-free. As the show aged, and the spin-offs ensued, the handling of rights got worse and more stereotypical.
Posted by: Cyrus | Mar 12, 2007 1:39:33 PM
I also have to echo the sentiments of those above concerning The Wire.
Co-Creator David Simon summed up the show thusly in a recent interview:
Simon: Thematically, it’s about the very simple idea that, in this Postmodern world of ours, human beings—all of us—are worth less. We’re worth less every day, despite the fact that some of us are achieving more and more. It’s the triumph of capitalism.
Slate: How so?
Simon: Whether you’re a corner boy in West Baltimore, or a cop who knows his beat, or an Eastern European brought here for sex, your life is worth less. It’s the triumph of capitalism over human value. This country has embraced the idea that this is a viable domestic policy. It is. It’s viable for the few. But I don’t live in Westwood, L.A., or on the Upper West Side of New York. I live in Baltimore.
-----
The triumph of capitalism over human value? It's not exactly your standard Good guys vs Bad guys television fare.
Posted by: Kyle | Mar 12, 2007 2:00:12 PM
Have to give a third to the comments on The Wire. The show does not portray a manichaen worldview of cops and robbers, good guys and good fellas. I have never seen a television drama that has do understandingly portrayed those who, due to deindustrialization and changes within the world economy as well as the indifference of fellow citizens, are left behind to rot or, in the words of Langston Hughes, fester. (Now that's a run-on sentence!) I can't recommend the show highly enough.
Posted by: Phil | Mar 12, 2007 3:19:50 PM
I confess!!! I have never seen Wire and only took the network's description as a basis for inclusion.
Is that your only beef? Then does it mean that all of you agree with the thesis of the column? If so, I am gratified.
If not, why not?
Posted by: Michael Blim | Mar 12, 2007 3:44:47 PM
Michael,
Watch The Wire. Otherwise, I agree completely.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 12, 2007 4:18:03 PM
Also, to whet your appetite.
David Simon:http://www.reason.com/news/show/29273.html
"Simon: Ed Burns and I spoke at one of those groups [American Enterprise Institute]. There came this point where a guy said, "Well, what is the solution? Give me the paragraph; give me the lede. What's the solution, if not drug prohibition?"
I very painstakingly said: "Look. For 35 years, you've systematically deindustrialized these cities. You've rendered them inhospitable to the working class, economically. You have marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you've alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say 'What's the solution?' and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don't know, but until you start it's only going to get worse."
And the guy looked at me and went, "But what's the solution?" He said it again. Ed Burns restrained me."
Posted by: Robin | Mar 12, 2007 5:29:42 PM
Excellent column. in the late 80's there was an article in Harper's on 'police interrogation methods', and around the same time an article of that exact title inThe American Scholar. Chilling stuff, because factually accurate, as is often portrayed on TV now.
The American scholar writer concluded that there are actually two legal systems in the US, one for the poor and poorly educated and the other for those who know to request a lawyer and remain silent when the police seem interested in asking them questions.
The Wire is the best thing ever on TV.
Posted by: Tom Noll | Mar 12, 2007 8:04:09 PM
As my siblings and I watched tv, my father would pass through the room, pause, and say "don't beleive any of that crap" I now think that there should be a class in grade school that teaches children that most of the stuff on tv is just that, "crap".
Posted by: eny | Mar 13, 2007 11:19:09 AM
Post a comment