In “The Thin Blue Line Documentary” by Errol Morris, which was created in 1988, Randall Adams, is a 28-year-old who runs out of gas on his way home, and as he makes his way to the petrol station, is offered a lift by a 16-year-old Harris, who has a criminal record. They spend more time together and Adams is unaware of the criminal he is with. Moreover, they drink beer and even watch a movie together. Later that night, a police officer doing normal patrol realizes that Harris’s car does not have headlights; the police officer is shot and dies on the spot. His name is Robert Woods. After the court process, Adams is found guilty. In this film, we realize that sometimes justice is a two-way scenario, the tragic fate for the innocent and freedom for the guilty.
Adams Status in the Society made him a Criminal
Adams was a child of a miner and he did not have a college education, he was deemed to be unsuccessful and, therefore, would not drift the course of justice. He was dehumanized and discriminated because of his status. He did not have a steady job and this is where a line between his innocence and justice was drawn. Had he been successful, maybe, he would not have received blind justice. The prosecution calls him a drifter, a hitchhiker who smokes Marijuana (Sherwin, 1994)
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lack of Witnesses
The defense did not have a witness while the prosecution had so many of them. Harris criminal past was ignored by the presiding judge. However, the judge relied on unreliable testimony thus proving Harris innocent. This marred the process of justice. On the other hand, the Adams case had already been predetermined by the prosecution and, therefore, they pursued him till the end.
Unlucky
Adams might have been an unlucky person as Harris is quoted saying. Therefore, his fate was already pre-determined by the judge. Harris says during an interview, “definitely he was unlucky.” He was at the wrong place at the wrong time (Morris, 1998). Because of fate, he was found to be on the wrong side of the law.
Unreliable Witnesses and Attorney
Morris tries his best to showcase Adams as an innocent individual by making the prosecution witness appear as over ambitious and unreliable. Miller, one of the witnesses, waves her hand dramatically during court sessions and points Adams as the one guilty. Morris further finds Miller unreliable by interviewing a friend who says; “that she has questionable character because she never says the truth (Morris, 1998). Through his film, he questions the reliability of the witness, who he says that they should not have been believed and trusted by the judge. He further proves to the audience that Adam’s attorney, Edith James is unbelievable and untrustworthy.
Ambiguous Truth
By the time the Thin Blue line film was at its close, Adams had not been convicted. Even after swaying the audience with his evidence, Adams remained behind bars and nothing changed. The audience believed in the truth but they kept wondering if the law would release him ( Gershman, 1989 ). The audience also started to believe that innocent persons can be guilty through word construction. Just as the bench believed that he was guilty, so did the audience believe so fast that he was innocent. Justice does not end once an individual has been convicted; it is a continuous process whose aim is to ensure that the innocent get true justice and the guilty serve their sentence.
References
Sherwin, Richard K. “Law Frames: Historical Truth and Narrative Necessity in a Criminal Case.” Stanford Law Review 47.1 (Nov. 1994)
Morris, Errol. Thin Blue Line. Final Script. 1998. 17 August 2001.
Gershman, Bennett L. “ The Thin Blue Line : Art or Trial in the Fact-Finding Process? 1989
