In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin analyzes well-known trials that "illustrate specific cultural conflicts and evasions that have occurred at critical junctures in our history". The three cases he looks at all represent Romanticized acts of crime that represent social issues during that period. For example in Tilton vs. Beecher, Beecher, who is a well-respected social and spiritual leader, is accused of having an affair with His best friend Tilton's wife. The ultimately decision of the court in this case was to decide whether to believe in the honesty of man, or to convict Beecher, revealing the hypocrisy and lies of society as a whole. This trial forced society to realize that man can no longer be trusted. In the cases described in this chapter, there is a Romanticized "hero" that takes on the law as a sacrifice to the greater good of society, or so they think. John Brown began a revolt as a sacrifice to all the slaves that had been and were still being mistreated, in hopes of beginning an uprising that would set all of the slaves free. Beecher allows himself to be a conservative, spiritual representative in court, when he in fact knew he was dishonest and a hypocrite, to preserve the greater appearances of truth and honesty in mankind. And lastly, Thaw establishes himself as a "hero", killing the man that took advantage of the socioeconomic anxiety of his wife. In all of these cases, crimes revealed growing anxieties and issues present at those times in history.
Chapter 5: The Postmodern Challenge
In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin reveals that people prefer stories to be neat with recognizable characters, and that this idea is no different while in court. He determines this by detailing the case of Randall Adams and the effects that a movie on that case ultimately had on the outcome of the trial. In court, Adams was found guilty and placed on death row for 12 years, when the documentary on the trial reversed the court's decision, setting Adams free. This movie, The Thin Blue Line, took two approaches to telling the story of what happened with Adams and Harris. The first approach, was the linear frame, that told the stories facts and details in an orderly, chronological fashion. The other approach, the nonlinear frame, told the story in a way that confused the issue, so that the audience could see all the possible scenarios, all equally able to occur. This approach also used cartoons and images to show that Adams killing the officer was in fact fictionalized and ridiculous. Ultimately, this nonlinear approach forced the audience to agree with and cling to the linear, finite story line. Another issue that Sherwin approaches, is the fact that we often associate ourselves with the character that identifies most with our current surroundings. In this case, Harris was a teenage boy from the area, whereas Adams was a drifter and an outsider. Instead of focusing on outward appearances, the court should have listened to the facts and history of the case.
Chapter 6: The Jurisprudence of Appearances
In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", the author begins by issuing a rule of thumb, "Whatever the mass media touch bears the mark of reality/fiction confusion". Sherwin explains that the presence of media in law and law in media is often to keep up appearances that justice is being served. By supporting this with cases from the Supreme Court, Sherwin says that, "The high court has long maintained a concern for the appearance of justice , insisting not only that justice must be done , but that the public must also perceive it as being done." Sherwin also describes that as a result of television shows on crime and law, the public has a distorted view of what a criminal truly is. Not only is this effecting the public's perceptions, but it is also shaping law that is made in the courtroom, where people have preconceived notions about what a criminal really is and looks like. Similarly, the presence of law in the news, movies, and other sources surrounding the actual case greatly impact the juror and their opinion, which is ultimately in direct objection to due process laws. The defendant is no longer given a fair trial by an unbiased jury. Popular culture in law is not only shaping culture, but it is shaping what makes law.
No comments:
Post a Comment