The falsely accused in Thin
Blue Line, Randall Adams, shares his experience with the judicial system
as a disservice to justice: “He don’t give a damn if you’re innocent, he don’t
give a damn if you’re guilty…they don’t care.”
“He” in this case refers to the judge, but frequently throughout the
film, Adams uses the term “they” to include prosecutors, the jury, and the
judge. I also interpret “they” to mean
“the man” or the government/law enforcement in general. Some form of justice is sought after someone
is murdered, but vengeance is an important factor when a police officer is
killed in the line of duty: the courts will take severe measures to avenge an officer's death. Pertaining to the jury, one attorney rightfully claimed that it was “their verdict
that counted.” This shows the fault in our judicial system and acceptance of the convenient
truth versus the inconvenient truth.
Though Thin Blue Line was
created to show the fault in Adams’ case, this story is not new in United
States' history. The convenient truth, in
other words, not the truth at all, is used to close cases. Men, often deemed inferior because of
minority and/or lower socioeconomic status, have been prosecuted as scapegoats
to ease the minds of victims, victims’ families, and society. Many desire the situation to be “handled”
rather than justice be served. It is important to decipher between partial
truth and whole truth: a man may be guilty of drunk driving and using illegal
drugs, but that does not indicate guilt of further crimes.
Herzog grapples with the importance of reality, the Factual,
and Truth: “Of course, we can’t disregard the factual; it has normative
power. But it can never give us the kind of illumination, the ecstatic flash,
from which Truth emerges.” Herzog deciphers between the Factual and Truth; some
things may be factually correct, such as hundreds sharing the same last name,
yet not necessarily displaying the Truth – because they all identify as
Schmidt, that does not mean they are THE Schmidt you are looking for.
Different realities are constructed depending on what evidence
is presented; the only people who know the absolute truth are those who were
present during the situation. Even that
is difficult to claim as some can convince themselves of a different past or find images and memories blurred in a haze of substances and adrenaline. Thin Blue Line encourages viewers to
investigate and challenge assumptions: it shows that the determination to
reveal truth can undermine a corrupt system.
I disagree in the fact that someone can hold or know the absolute truth, even if they are present during the situation at hand. There is no absolute truth in the human realm, that is why when talking about absolute truth we turn to deities, or a super being out of our reasoning who is able to comprehend and resonate truth.
ReplyDeleteWe take truth as the recall of events or feeling, but we are blind by our own limitations of perception. 2 people can experience the same event, in the same time, and it would still be differently perceived. What we can achieve for is collective truth. A combination of our perceptions and understandings in order to reach to a common agreement. Which is why we opted for the "justice" system composed of jury, judge, and defendant and persecutor, yet as you mention that results in a flawed corrupt system.