There are many aspects of this particular episode that leave the viewer frustrated at the ambiguousness. Thompson's daughter is impossible to trust. She is so malleable that the viewer is left wondering whether or not the defense did the right thing.
The crime was heinous. There is no doubt about that. Did it happen? No one can be certain except for the father. Even the mother is an untrustworthy source.
The criminal in this case was a perfect snake-in-the-grass. The victim believed him, but at the same time, didn't. She spoke against him and for him.
According to Surette's definition of an "ideal offender," Thompson was anything but. He was not an outsider, a stranger, a foreigner, an alien nor any other thing that might make him less believable.
Thompson's daughter, on the other hand, was an "ideal victim." At the time, she was a child. It seems as though she never moved on from that mindset.
The lawyers go into the case, believing they are righting a horrible wrong, but by the end of the episode, nothing seems quite right. Sure, they won the case. But did they release a guilty man?
The title of the episode, "Perverted Justice" is a perfect way to describe the frustrating job of a lawyer. On a good day, you put a bad person behind bars. On a bad day, a guilty person walks free. The justice in this episode is just as ambiguous as Thompson's daughter.
This episode fits into the idea that the crime was truly awful and made the viewer unnerved that justice was (or was not) served. The show moved through the whole aspect of the criminal justice system and allowed the viewer to watch and learn as lawyers did their dance to try and help their client. The ambiguous nature of the end gave viewers a glimpse into the realities of law and crime.
The episode connected with the ecology because it gave an ideal victim and a horrific crime. It did not fit because the criminal was more human than monster, as depicted by him teaching another prisoner to read (the bible) and as he teared up in his defense.
Hi Will. Good start here. You grapple with the complexities of the episode well. My main suggestion (for future reference) is that you offer a more detailed summary of Surette's claims before you dive into the analysis--this will give the reader more context and help you articulate your claims. Let me know if you have questions.
ReplyDelete