Major Issue addressed
The documentary “Second Chance Kids” of the Frontline series produced by Brian Funck, Ken Dornstein and Jason Pugatch, present the dilemma that was created by the landmark Supreme Court ruling that rendered sentences of mandatory life without parole unconstitutional. The documentary presents the views of the individual juvenile offenders, now adults, their victims’ families, their advocates, and the views of lawyers and prosecutors who opposed the idea of releasing such criminals back into society. As juveniles, the individuals were sentenced to life without parole, just like adult offenders and thus, denied any second chances of having an ordinary life (Funck et al., 2017). The film follows the parole hearings and release of two among the offenders in the bid to present the audience with an insight into what happens when such people are allowed back into society. The film, however, does not disregard the pain and concerns of the victims’ families and what such decisions would mean for them. It also provides opinions from both sides of the issue to provide the audience with proper understanding of the whole situation. One factor that comes out clear, however, is the fact that children should never be treated or sentenced as adults. Children behave irrationally, and as they transform into adults, they realize that they behaved wrongly while they were young. The film tries to bring out this point and proves it through the testimonies of the offenders. Also, the fact that none of those released back to the society had violated their terms of parole meant that they had truly changed and learned from their wrongdoings.
Primary Individuals in the Documentary
The major characters of the film are Anthony Rolon and Joe Donavan, two of the offenders who were incarcerated during the nineties as teenagers. These were just two of the two thousand offenders who had been convicted and sentenced on high profile cases such as murder while they were still teenagers. The backgrounds of their cases, their lives in prison, their parole hearings, and their reunion with their family members are all covered in the documentary. The film even provides an insight into Anthony Rolon’s life after his release. He gets a job and also gets a chance to be able to have and care for his child. Other major characters include Emanuel Howard, Anthony Rolon’s representative, and Ingrid Martin, Joe Donavan’s representative. These two present the actual nature of the crimes committed by the suspects and how those cases should have been approached, given that the offenders were juveniles. They also defended the idea of a parole hearing and a possibility of parole or release of the offenders, citing that they had indeed served enough time and had been transformed both by the system and by the fact that they had become different people than they were as teenagers. The film also presented the views of other major players, including advocates for juveniles such as Barbara Kaban and District Attorneys and prosecutors such as Timothy Cruz.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Biases
It is clear that while the film tries to present both sides of the issue, it supports the idea of offering second chances to those who were convicted and sentenced as juveniles. The title alone presents this notion as it focuses the viewer on ‘second chance’ that such ‘kids’ deserve. It follows the cases, parole hearings, and life after prison of two of the offenders, to try to present a point that such people need second chances. The two felons testify and apologize to the victims’ families for having caused them so much pain and say that they have completely changed. By the time of the production of the film, about eleven offenders who had been given parole were reported to have not violated the terms of their parole. By presenting the positive sides of the issue, the film carefully supported the idea of giving the juvenile offenders second chances. In doing so, it failed to present the other side of the matter clearly. This includes the grief of the victims’ families and the risk that allowing such high profile killers posed to society. Families of the victims who hoped that those who took away the lives of their loved ones would serve life without parole, would have to be forced to live with another reality. Also, being called to report to the parole hearings alone brought a lot of torture and rekindled their grief. While these murders were conducted by teenagers, there is no telling that the perpetrators have absolutely changed and cannot engage in such crimes again.
Personal Assessment
A lot of aspects of the film are likable. It took the filmmakers along time to put up all the pieces together. The film involves a lot of professionals involved in the field of criminal justice and ordinary people who were involved or affected by the offenders’ criminal actions. What is most admirable is the fact that the film tried to present all sides of the issue through interviews and testimonies. However, what I did not like is the fact that the film took a side and did not present how the issue affected victims’ families in a comprehensive manner. It focused on lives, opinions, testimonies, parole hearings, and the reunions of the offenders with their families. A few things that I did learn from the documentary include the incredibly huge number of offenders incarcerated as juveniles and the fact that juveniles convicted of murder cases are sentenced as adults. One thing that cast a doubt in the case was the fact that Joe Donavan, having been detained while in prison for getting involved in fights, was still believed to have reformed and given parole. It was not quite clear that such an individual had completely changed and that he would not be involved in any form of violence if released back into society. The film, however, changed my mind and opinion of juvenile offenders involved in high crime cases. I believe that murderous, whether juveniles or adults, need to be detained for life and never be allowed back into society. But the film showed that these individuals were not mature and still had their future before them. They needed a second chance at life to correct their wrongs and aspire for greatness.
Recommendations
The movie presents its subject well and provides a broad spectrum of views regarding the topic. One thing that could improve the film and make it much more appealing include and addition of major characters in the category of the offenders. It is clear that the filmmakers wanted the focus the attention of the viewer or the audience on the issue of giving a second chance to juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. In doing so, the film needed to use more cases of offenders to show the nature of the situation from more than just two perspectives. More offenders who underwent parole hearings, including those whose appeals were denied, would have made the film much more appealing and authentic. Otherwise, the film is a good one and one that is highly recommendable to anyone. Most people are not aware of the Supreme Court decision of 2012 regarding juveniles, and watching the film would enlighten them on that and more issues regarding juvenile crimes.
References
Funck, B., Pugatch, J., & Dornstein, K. (2017). Frontline: Second Chance Kids . TV Episode 2017. PBS International.
