Jana Dubinovsky Professor Seabrook

CRJ270 September 20, 2021

Criminal Justice Journal Entry #2

Watching the Netflix series “When They See Us” was an eye-opening experience.

Though I had anecdotal knowledge of the case of the Central Park Five, the series put into

perspective the true human cost of misleading evidence and false confessions. One question that

I asked several friends and family members was the question of the morality of police being able

to lie to possible suspects in order to gather evidence and convict a perpetrator. All of my

interviewees agreed on one fundamental point – it is simply unethical for the police to perpetuate

false claims in an interrogation. For many, lying may seem like an insignificant sin. However,

what does it say about the criminal justice system that police officers are not only allowed, but in

some cases encouraged to lie to suspects? This undermines the virtue of truth and honesty that,

one would think, should be a pillar of the policing institution, upsetting belief in a peacekeeping

authority. More often than not, coercive statements based on lies lead to false convictions,

punting innocent civilians into perhaps a lifetime of trauma dealt by the prison systems.

“When They See Us” brought to light the heart-breaking realities of the justice system

that are still occurring in the present, especially when it concerns members of marginalized

communities. As can be seen in the show, the majority of high-ranking detectives involved in the

Central Park jogger case, as well as the victim, were white, and the five suspects African

American. Racial tensions come to a head, especially with the media at large clamoring for

blood. Heavy emphasis was placed on the ethnicities of the victim and the suspects, and the
media continued to use this tactic to perpetrate harmful stereotypes of Black people – wild,

brutal, and rampaging was just some of the language used in news and radio reports across the

country. It can be clear to see how the discrepancies in treatment between white citizens and

people of color can affect the daily lives of underprivileged communities, especially when it

concerns contact with law enforcement. I asked my friends and family some basic questions

about their understanding of race in America, including their thoughts on the current Black Lives

Matter movement and police reform. Generally, I found that my collegiate peers reacted

favorably to BLM and police reform, even generating ideas about how to improve recruitment

and training, and how to deescalate the intense militarization of the police force we see today, all

of which contribute to the great power imbalance between members of the justice system and

civilians, especially minorities. This belief that the authority themselves should be respected,

rather than respect for the actions taken that improve the community, is another reason that

police feel it is necessary to exercise extreme force in cases where it is simply not needed. When

I asked my family about their thoughts on race in America and the police, the reactions were

more mixed. Many members of my family generally lean conservative, so it is sometimes

difficult to have a truly productive conversation about controversial topics. Though my family

did not directly oppose the Black Lives Matter movement and all it stands for, they and I did not

share the exact same ideals about police reform, though we did agree that law enforcement

officers today do take on more work and responsibility than necessary, and that this can be

mitigated with more funding directed to social programs.

Another question I crafted for my responders was one of the role of police in a

community. In the second episode of “When They See Us,” the attorney for the defense, Michael

Joseph, said during opening statements in court that the police were eager to solve a crime. One’s
initial argument is that, of course, is it not the job of the police to solve crimes? This is an

oversimplification of the work it takes to close a case, and, both in the case and demonstrated in

the series, police committed gross negligence by becoming convinced that the suspects at hand –

Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray, and Raymond Santana – were,

in fact, the perpetrators of a vicious crime. The lead detective, Linda Fairstein, was so hungry for

revenge and justice for the victim, Patricia Meili, that she became completely blindsided. In this

misguided quest for retribution, is then the work of a police officer not called into question? If, in

such a high-stakes case, the police cannot be trusted to comply with every regulation and aspect

of due diligence, how can the community develop any sense of mutual trust with the police in

their area? Some answers I received about the role of police in a community included preventing

crime, serving and protecting the constituents, upholding the values of a community, and

providing other vital services necessary in their precinct. Negligence in any level of the criminal

justice system leads to harsh, real-world consequences for the falsely convicted, as can clearly be

seen in the case of the Central Park Five.

Several scholarly journals also brought to light the issue of especially vulnerable

populations in the prison system. In the case of juveniles, especially, long-term convictions lead

to a large portion of the individual’s life and formative years spent in the criminal justice system.

This can lead to lingering effects such as trauma, mental health problems, and various long-

lasting illnesses. One thing noted in an article titled “The Impact of Incarceration on Young

Offenders” (Matsuda, 2009), is that the level of maturation experienced by young adults has

changed over the years. As life expectancies increase, emotional, physical, and financial

independences are experienced later in life, going from marrying out of high school to achieving

independence in mid- to late twenties. However, this shift in the age of maturity has not been
reflected in the eyes of the criminal justice system. Matsuda talks about the common practice of

“aging-out” of antisocial behaviors as young adults begin to comply with established social

norms (3). However, the legal age of adulthood in the eyes of the courts, especially in a criminal

case, has not changed. Young people, though not classified as minors in the eyes of the court (as

seen in the example of Korey Wise, 16, in the Central Park jogger case) receive mandated harsh

sentences and must live out many years of their first steps into adulthood as convicts. These

impacts carry on to adulthood, where former children must step back out into the world and

struggle with finding employment, housing, education, and community support, as much as any

formerly incarcerated person.

One question that can be brought up in terms of the morality of juveniles in prison is the

accountability taken, and how this can translate into legality. The severity of the crime certainly

matters when assessing youth cases. Of course, young adults are more easily rehabilitated back

into the community after time spent in a juvenile detention center, if the crime committed did not

threaten or physically harm anyone – thefts, destruction of property, vandalism, etc. One issue

seen in the criminal justice system is what to do with young adults that have knowingly

committed a violent crime – assault, rape, homicide – and how to balance the severity of the

crime, the duty to the victim, and the consequences of imprisonment. One important thing to

consider in sentencing any defendant is the intention behind the crime. This is especially

important to consider with youth, depending on the age. Nature vs nurture plays a hand in this

debate as well. Failings of the system can drive many people to a life of crime, with lower

education rates, endless cycles of poverty, and lack of trust in law enforcement.
 Works Cited

Matsuda, Kristy N. The Impact of Incarceration on Young Offenders. University of California,

Irvine, 27 Apr. 2009.