The Central Park Five Documentary is a motion picture that describes what is referred to as the most significant miscarriage of justice in the recent past. The two-hour long documentary is based on an assault that took place in Central Park, New York in 1989. It re-tells the story of the white female jogger cenotaph was assaulted, raped and left for dead. It also describes the fate of the five teenagers who were wrongly convicted and sentenced for the crime.
The documentary is true to suggest that the boys were in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, it should have gone further to point out that the scene was set in a way that would trigger prejudice. First, the public outcry about this case was primarily fueled by the fact that the victim was from the "right "race. Had the victim been from a minority race or ethnic group, the publicity surrounding this case would have been toned down. This can be attributed in part to the stereotype that minority ethnic groups are prone to violence. Therefore, violence against one of their members can be brushed off as a domestic disturbance, gang activity or turf war. 1
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The boys were also already disadvantaged by the fact that they were members of minority groups. The teenagers who are from the black and Latino communities were already stereotyped as potential criminals. The documentary points out that the time frame in question was filled with riotous criminal activity that affected all New York residents. The teenagers, therefore, lost their identity as New York residents and merely fit into the mould of criminals. The documentary fails to demonstrate the contribution of the justice system to this error 2 .
For starters, the filmmaker could have pointed out the inevitability of the arrest. This is because probable cause has a very low threshold and definition. Therefore, if the teenagers fit into the profile of criminals in arresting officers’ eyes, then it had to happen. The rights of the young men regarding freedom of movement and right to travel are not applicable in this case. This oversight on the part of the documentary maker to highlight this creates a gap for a viewer who is not privy to other sources of information. One wonders why everyone was so quick to believe that the five were guilty.
Secondly, the post-arrest scenario is similar to what takes place to date. The young men are rushed into interrogation without being given a fair chance to access justice. Confessions are often coerced and extracted under strenuous conditions that disadvantage the suspect. The legal representation availed is also lackluster. The documentary brings out the nature of the neglect well through the confused and inconsistent statements that are presented to the court.
The documentary seems to downplay the impact of the wrongful conviction on the lives of the five. It seems to absolve the justice system of all blame just because they set the now grown men free. The action of wiping their record clean does not equal giving them back the years lost. Ironically, the documentary seems to leave out facts that paint the boys in a dark light. This would be accurate because the boys had a history of petty criminal behavior. The film writer does not involve the police or the representatives of the court exhaustively. This makes the documentary seems like a sanitizing exercise aimed at displaying the execution of delayed justice. Though it is educational and thought-to provoke, the documentary could do better if it presented all the available facts as they unfolded in 1989.
Bibliography
‘‘ Conroy Justin. ‘‘ Show me your papers ’’.Race and Street encounters. National Black Law Journal; 2006; 19, 2; ProQuest Central pg. 149. 2006;
Youth. Brunson & Miller, Jody. Gender,Race,and Urban Policing : The experience of African American GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 20 No. 4, August 2006 531-552. 2006.
