![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
giandujakissI've complained a lot about how television shows involving the criminal justice system tend to get the law wildly wrong - and not just wrong, but consistently wrong in a direction that makes it seem like it's a lot easier for criminals to get away than is actually the case. And it's galling, because it contributes to ideas in the public mind that defendants have too many rights, and we need to eternally restrict them.
A lot of the time, these stories play out by having the criminal sue, or threaten to sue, the police - thus creating a lot of drama over whether a good cop will end up getting fired or being bankrupted because of a frivolous lawsuit. Once again, the reality is, it's very very hard - often impossible - to sue the cops or other law enforcement people, but these shows make it look like the courts are eternally tilted in favor of criminals.
Which is why I'm so pleased about this ongoing storyline on The Closer.
The premise is, in the course of investigating a murder, Chief Will Pope prematurely granted blanket immunity for any crimes to a witness in exchange for his statement. Turned out the witness was a murderer, and he used his blanket immunity to confess. The cops were horrified.
The witness was also a gang member and the other members of his gang were upset that he had betrayed them. So when he asked to leave the police station, Brenda - with full awareness of what she was doing - drove him home and dropped him off in front of his house, knowing that his fellow gang members were waiting there to kill him.
They did.
His family sued, and for several episodes now, they've been drawing out the story of the lawsuit and the internal investigation it prompted.
I'm loving it. First, I don't know if legally, the family members really would be able to sue over this. But it's certainly plausible that they could, it's not obviously ridiculous the way a lot of TV cop lawsuits are.
Second, the show is sympathetic to Brenda - she's the heroine, after all - and certainly as a viewer you want her to be okay, but at the same time, the show is not shying away from the fact that she really did something wrong. The characters variously justify it on the ground that the guy was a killer and would certainly have killed again, but the show makes it clear that morally, if not legally, Brenda basically aided a murder. So the show isn't trying to persuade us that lawsuits are criminals' way of harassing the cops; the show is demonstrating that the plaintiffs have a legitimate complaint.
Anyway, it's really well done, and so different than what I usually see.
A lot of the time, these stories play out by having the criminal sue, or threaten to sue, the police - thus creating a lot of drama over whether a good cop will end up getting fired or being bankrupted because of a frivolous lawsuit. Once again, the reality is, it's very very hard - often impossible - to sue the cops or other law enforcement people, but these shows make it look like the courts are eternally tilted in favor of criminals.
Which is why I'm so pleased about this ongoing storyline on The Closer.
The premise is, in the course of investigating a murder, Chief Will Pope prematurely granted blanket immunity for any crimes to a witness in exchange for his statement. Turned out the witness was a murderer, and he used his blanket immunity to confess. The cops were horrified.
The witness was also a gang member and the other members of his gang were upset that he had betrayed them. So when he asked to leave the police station, Brenda - with full awareness of what she was doing - drove him home and dropped him off in front of his house, knowing that his fellow gang members were waiting there to kill him.
They did.
His family sued, and for several episodes now, they've been drawing out the story of the lawsuit and the internal investigation it prompted.
I'm loving it. First, I don't know if legally, the family members really would be able to sue over this. But it's certainly plausible that they could, it's not obviously ridiculous the way a lot of TV cop lawsuits are.
Second, the show is sympathetic to Brenda - she's the heroine, after all - and certainly as a viewer you want her to be okay, but at the same time, the show is not shying away from the fact that she really did something wrong. The characters variously justify it on the ground that the guy was a killer and would certainly have killed again, but the show makes it clear that morally, if not legally, Brenda basically aided a murder. So the show isn't trying to persuade us that lawsuits are criminals' way of harassing the cops; the show is demonstrating that the plaintiffs have a legitimate complaint.
Anyway, it's really well done, and so different than what I usually see.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-26 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-26 02:08 pm (UTC)