These people have received none of the basic services provided to parolees, ie housing and job assistance, medical care and psychotherapy, to assist in the transition back to life on the outside.
Of the several shocking things I learned from this film, I was most shocked by this.
Because they are innocent, these people do not receive even the most basic assistance given to parolees who are returning to freedom. They are given nothing. One man, released from two decades on death row, is given five dollars and eighty-seven cents, and sent on his way.
I agree with Marinas1212's wholehearted recommendation of this film.
It sets out to tell the story of some people who have suffered for years, how they are coping with their lives now, and how all of them are still fighting for justice.
There are many, many touching moments in the film, but something I found particularly moving was that each of these men, in fighting for right to be done, is acutely aware that he is not just fighting for himself. Some are fighting for their fellow exonerees, and for those innocent people still waiting behind bars for exoneration that may never come, some are fighting for the victims of crime, and all of them are fighting for a better justice system.
The one comment besides Marinas1212's that I have read so far mentioned the "imbalance" of the film in not showing the prosecutorial viewpoint. I think the filmmakers did not need to spend time retrying cases proven by DNA evidence to have resulted in wrongful convictions. The idea of the film instead is to show how these innocent men are coping with their current lives.
The same reviewer mentioned that different men had different levels of ability in acclimating to freedom, and remarked that some seemed mentally disturbed or lacked joie de vivre. I can barely control my exasperation at this supposed "insight." Obviously anyone falsely imprisoned even for a day is going to suffer; these people lost decades, lost family members, lost livelihoods, lost marriages. I would have lost my mind. The fact is, all of them are coping. All of them are working for positive change and to have positive lives. One of the men cited by the reviewer as not exhibiting enough cheeriness is continually remarked on throughout the film, by strangers, friends and family, as being tremendously positive and forgiving.
I thought the film did a great job of helping us try to imagine the experience they and their families suffered, but I guess each of us has our own level of empathy, just as the men in the film have their own individual paths to recovery.
The film does not mention post-traumatic stress directly, but I was reminded while watching of doctors who help torture victims recover, and of the different kinds of responses war veterans have when they return to civilian life.
A very powerful film, especially if you allow yourself to imagine being in someone else's shoes.
last 2 dvds:
Gone Baby Gone (2007) &
Tru Calling: Season 1 (2003)
reply
share
chansky111
16 years ago
A very powerful film, especially if you allow yourself to imagine being in someone else's shoes.
I second this. As a new father, the implications of being separated from children as a result of being wrongly imprisoned struck a chord with me. I was more than moved on several occasions. To empathize and realize how much of their life was lost, and to see their parents there till the end (in most cases) fighting for their own children. Power that only a documentary can provide. A new favorite.
reply
share
movieman-232
13 years ago
I'm a little late for this thread. Alright, a lot late. But I'm going to try to bump it up a little...or a lot:)
I emailed someone who knows something about this kind of thing. This is her reply:
"FYI: parolee's are not provided " basic services provided such as
housing and job assistance, medical care and psychotherapy, to assist in
the transition back to life on the outside". They are able to sue for
"wrongful imprisonment" in some cases, that is why the States,
prosecutioners, police, and correctional facilities "cling" to the
original conviction's, and don't apologize. And, unfortunately, the
"criminal justice system performed exactly as it was supposed
to"......the problem does not lie with the people who carry out the
system...but the system itself...particularly the system before DNA."
To which I just replied:I also asked her if she meant that the filmmakers lied, here's her reply:
"No, I'm not saying this film "lied". Documentaries have a specific point
of view, and they illustrate this point of view. I would agree that
people who are exonerated SHOULD have access to "basic services,
housing, job assistance, medical care and psychotherapy to assist in
their transition back into society"....however, if the State provided
these services, they would then be admitting their "culpability" in the
conviction, which basically means, that the prosecution was able to
convince a jury of 12 that this person was "guilty beyond a shadow of a
doubt"...which is what their job is. Should these folks be allowed to
sue the jurors for finding them guilty? Etc."
And I said
I'm not speaking out against the jurors; they can be swayed into
thinking the wrong way. I'm talking about the system itself, as you
said. The judge whom should know better than to seriously condemn
anyone that they feel might not be getting the right treatment. That
they should be able to sue the justice system, and the prisons for
harboring them longer than is necissary.
Her retort:
"The way the "system" is supposed to work, is that the prosecution
presents the evidence to the jury, unfortunately, a major "piece" of
evidence is usually eyewitness testimony, and the defense is supposed to
create "doubt" of the defendant's guilt. The jury determines if the
prosecution has presented "beyond a shadow of the doubt" that the
defendant is guilty, OR that the defense has introduced evidence of
"doubt" as to the defendant's guilt. After the jury has voted,
unanimously that a person is guilty, the judge must sentence a defendant
to the prescribed sentence for their crime. This is the justice system.
They must stay in prison for the time that the law prescribes....in
States where there is parole, and where a defendant is qualified for
parole, parole boards determine if someone can be paroled on if they
admit their crimes and have learned their "lesson"....if they cannot
take responsibility for the crime they have been convicted of..the
parole board cannot, in good conscious, parole them."
My retort: They are insane. Deluded that their system can do no wrong. Wouldn't you say?
"No, not insane, fearful of being sued AND no one goes into the law with
the intent to send innocent people of prison....it is very very VERY
difficult for human's to admit to mistakes and/or take responsibility
for their mistakes!"
I said: Just because they are afraid of being sued, does that really mean that
someone is sane to follow broken (insane) principles?
She said: "Read the rest of the post"
So I said: I know that it's impossible for some people to admit that they are
wrong. But I would think that some one in a system like the justice
system would try to be more principled, a bit less fearful of
admitting to mistakes. I guess I wish attornies were less culpable,
wish there were real Atticus Finches.
Then we went off track and had a few words about To Kill a Mockingbird. But my last reply was: The justice system is only as good as those who made it and those who choose to follow it.
Now what do I think? To take the lyrics from a song by a band called Mad Season "I don't know anything." I swear that I sometimes feel that way. What about you?
reply
share
lilylangtree
11 years ago
Thanks for posting that conversation. She described the system fine, but she completely overlooks the imbalance that, in my opinion, is there from the start. No one has to hire a prosecutor in a state's case, only the defendant has to pay money to have representation. So anyone who can't afford a good defense attorney is already playing with a handicap, I think. And if someone has to end up with a public defender... well, I wouldn't dare say they're all inexperienced or overworked, but a great deal of them are. Now your life is on the line at the hands of someone new to the justice system who has god only knows how many cases on their mind. Defendants have to pay for their own independent lab testing, experts, etc., and meanwhile the taxpayers pay for everything the prosecution does. I'm surprised anybody gets a fair trial just looking at it like that. It also disturbs me that, as forensic science makes leaps year after year, how are the lay people of the jury able to keep up with it? Well, they don't, so the evidence that can convict or acquit someone is left to people who know nothing about it and to be explained by so-called expert witnesses who don't even have to be vetted by anyone but the judge. People with forensic degrees from online colleges can testify as expert witnesses! That scares the hell out of me.
reply
share