The Hurricane

Movie Analysis ~ “The Hurricane"

I would like to start this last blog out with a quote straight from the movie, “Hate got me into this place, love got me out”. And I am going to add a small remark to that as well about the subject of innocence since the movie was engulfed by it. First of all, I truly believe in the concept that any and every man or woman should be treated equally and he/she is also innocent until proven guilty. I have never seen this movie and am very grateful that it was included in our assignments. The true story of Rubin Carver is not only fascinating but also very sad. It is unfortunate that he lost so many years of his life. It truly is a tale that lies way beyond a reasonable doubt and the injustice of Carver’s experience is still very unimaginable for me to comprehend and just to think of the amount of pain that he experienced and suffered while in prison for a crime that he did not commit is truly horrific.

“Come on and get some!!! Come on now – for murders I never did commit!!” that’s where the movie began and there lies its psychological reference for me. You can almost feel the psychological stress and frustration that prison has taken on Denzel Washington’s character, “Rubin”. While in prison, he is shadow boxing but at the same time there were memories or flashbacks if you will also being shown. I, as a viewer could see it was like a memory being re-lived by a man who was incarcerated. I was already hooked and drawn into the characters state of mind. He was tired of feeling or being taken granted for, he had enough of what was being done to him, whatever that was. I have admit that I very surprised that the guard who appeared within minutes of this movie who began talking to “Rubin” was also the guard who played in the last movie that was just assigned to analyze, The Shawshank Redemption. How ironic I thought, the actor has sort of been stereotyped as being as “asswhole”, pardon my French and now from what I’ve seen will probably never be the main character in any movie but rather just a side kick, I know I got sidetracked but oh well, that’s psychology for you on many levels from real t.v, to movies, the actors/all sorts of characters and society knows all too well the stereotypes in real life. Dominos, if laid out to mimic life will tap and touch the other, and the other and the other if placed like events in our life. Life just like in the movie is portrayed like a roller coaster, a ride! There’s a beginning, a middle, end, ups, downs, twists, turns, even loop to loops and just when you’re afraid you hang on even tighter because you can feel the rush. Yet, it’s the fear that keeps you moving forward and you never forget what you’ve felt, been through or came from.

Now the chapters that the movie really focuses on are Chapter 7 which is about eyewitness testimony and the witness strength of the crime; chapter 3, lie detection; chapter 11, interviewing children and especially chapter 17; the errors and mistakes by the justice system. One of the main points of the movie comes directly from lie detection and how one individual specially a law man probably the main detective places a grudge on a child, who during that time in society was a “nigga with a knife” and that officer took it upon himself to make sure he paid for a mistake which to me was a mistake that did not need to be taken to the extent that it was. The psychology of his life is all I can think about. How does one individual make it and another does not. It is all very psychological and very interesting.

That’s when the movie shifts and what seems to be the plot or first important occurrence in time it is not and Denzel’s character is now only 10 years old and unfortunately because he was truly defending himself he stabbed a man and that sealed his fate. In that same chapter because a detective or person in charge makes an assumption of his guilt their focus gets tainted and forevermore they look for no other reason or explanation than Rubin is guilty and evil. And because the man who was stabbed was pretty important or had money – the system favored him and Rubin was placed in an alternative home and sentenced to remain there until he was 21 years old. He was there 8 years and then his struggles were supposed to end but they did not. He tried to escape was when he got the chance even joined the army but that didn’t work either. The law really didn’t give him a chance.

Then, the next big scene I would like to analyze is the shooting, where once again Rubin’s destiny is altered. There were two witnesses from that incident and they were not at all very reliable but once again someone with power arranged for certain circumstances and the proceeding were not as lawful as they should have been. Just like in reality, in the news just a few weeks ago there was talk of a small town with a crooked sheriff. Society and today’s judicial system is not at all what it should be. To continue with the movie, it shifts to the two black men being pulled over by the cops and that’s when one officer approaches the car and even notices Rubin, as the famous boxer that he is. And surprisingly enough the officer even admits they are looking for two black men in a white car in reference to a crime and then Rubin states, “any two black men will do”? Just as I mentioned before stereotypes still do exists today and even more so in the prison system.

I know this movie is a true story and what I find amazing because I have never seen the movie is that they (the two suspects) are taken to the hospital where the man who was shoot is actually being attended to by medical professionals to make an identification of the man who shoot him even if there was no gun found on the two men. That was unbelievable to me even though it was in the 1960’s or not. Racism of that time is definitely portrayed in this movie. And then the movie quickly continues and the sight of a prison cell with Rubin yelling and whaling again and that was only 12 minutes of the movie. I, once again have come to the realization that this is only the beginning of the psychology and law and the consequence is that a movie, an assignment will change my life forever.

Prison life must be a difficult one to face and after he was released from that first ridiculous charge, Rubin decided to start a life anew. But first we have to start at the beginning. That’s is the next real concept I would like to address, discriminations, the way the system works and the harshness of prison life once he was convicted. Chapter 7, eyewitness testimony and the recording of the statements given we so quickly passed by that by the time the jury convicted the accused it was all over. There was no testimony or closing arguments but that is not just a ploy to get the moving going that is just the way the real trial went. The sentences that were given to them were life in prison, never to be released. It was all too shift, yet that is sometimes how real life works, this is in fact a true story and it was back in the 1960’s which meant that a black person would have even less rights then they do now or anyone for that matter. Rubin sustains his innocence and under no circumstances will he be touched as a prisoner. As we all know, Ruben Carver was a championship boxer and he was not afraid to show it. One thing that is definitely revealed is his distaste for the prison system, authority and all that put him in prison. He did nothing wrong in the beginning and yet, it truly is only the beginning of his story. As chapter 17 deals with the mistakes and errors – the viewer realizes so many things be psychological or unlawful both were involved in this movie, the largest part was on the part of legal, justice and every other system that had its hand in Rubin’s arrests, trials, convictions, and prison sentences. It is so disturbing how that the one detective took such a personal interest and had such a grudge against him that it followed him throughout his life. Chapter 16 also is linked because of the sheer violence and the way the power of someone who is in a superior position takes the situations involved. It is clearly unlawful and the lengths that law enforcement went to all the people in charge and what they did to Rubin Carver is just despicable. I can’t believe what this man went through and that it was all at the hands of the law. During the trial which went by fairly quickly and as both defendants were sentenced and as the judge stated, “As you have claimed innocence throughout this ordeal yet you are sentenced to be in prison for the remainder of your natural life” – three life sentences. And that’s that. For many prisoners it doesn’t really set in until the door slam shut but for Rubin, he realized and knew what prison was all about and whether or not he is now in prison he lets them know that no one will harm him. They may be able to lock him up but no one better touch him, remember what I wrote before, he’s still a champion at boxing.

There was a certain part of the movie where Denzel’s character, Rubin is shadow boxing and going through what seems to be a mental breakdown. I truly believe that the movie is trying to portray the psychological well-being of someone who is put in through torture, human suffering at its rawest form, solitaire confinement, being put through the mere isolation from the outside world and from people he loved, in general. Prison life was once again revealed just like in chapter 16, living in fear everyday of your life does always living in fear and wondering when and what the system was going to use in order to break him. Freedom was the one thing that was left for him and even though they tried to take everything else from him – he was stubborn and did not let them take that aspect from him. Rubin never left his cell even when permitted, he never ate the food from prison – just what he was able to purchase for himself. He ate, lived, read, and just breathed in the cell. He even said goodbye to the people he loved so that it was his choice and not just another thing that the warden can take from him.

Finally, as I conclude my final analysis with the greatest comparison to psychology and law and I also just want to add “anything is possible”. A young man, who read the book that had been written by Rubin, who was still in prison finds something within himself and has decided that even after all these years he is going to do something about it and find a way to help him get out. This was all because a young boy read a book. And then once again the dominoes begin to fall again but this time in favor of Rubin and even though it has never been done before and when you try to bring new evidence into a new judge’s court room from another state/judge and if decided it could be lost forever if the judge decides to rule it out. Yet, no matter the significance or the possibilities Rubin proceeds. The judge will hear the evidence and it always under the discretion of the judge or someone who is superior in power. It is quite a legal system we have here. A defendant always has the option to speak on his own behalf as does Rubin in his trial. He describes his boxing/prize fighting days but continues his claim of innocence and all he ask is that the judge look to the truth and that higher principle that the law is supposed to uphold be upheld in his case. The judge does something that had never been done and for that he changed history as we know it. The whole process was because of appeal after appeal. That section in our textbook is in chapter 16 – prisoner’s rights and the role of the courts.
Another great movie that definitely points out the many links between psychology and law.

Terms: Innocence, analysis, guilty, freedom, beyond a reasonable doubt, injustice, courts, prison, crime, commit, murders, psychological, memories, flashbacks, jails, psychologically, guard, incarcerate, stereotype, eyewitness, testimony, law, detective, officer, charges, stabbed, army, system, crimes, identification, gun, shooting, supreme court, lie detection, appeals, proceedings, isolation, torture, solitaire confinement, convicted, released, racism, prison cell, sheriff, discrimination, jury, rights, prisoner, accused, inmate, juries, unlawful, judge, juror and life sentence.

For this final blog post, we watched The Hurricane, which I had actually never heard anything about before this class. The movie was really good and really gave you a lot to think about. At one point, Denzel’s character, Rubin “The Hurricane” Carter, tells Lesra that we must be able to transcend the ideas that hold us. This little bit of wisdom is a common theme of the movie and something that stuck out to me even after the movie was over and everyone was happy (except for that grumpy cop, but he doesn’t deserve to be happy).
From the beginning of his life, Rubin found himself dealing with racism and harsh treatment from law enforcement, particularly the aforementioned grumpy cop. At age 11, after stabbing a man who was trying to throw him off a ledge (a good enough reason to stab someone in my book), Rubin is sent to the state boy’s home until he turns 21. When he is first brought into custody, he is intimidated and cursed at by the officers. They treat him like he is an adult and show their prejudice thoroughly. Their first assumption is that the stabbing took place as the result of a robbery gone awry, further exhibiting the stereotypes of even black children at the time. Never once do the officer consider the fact that he is a young kid who is too scared to tell the truth, which is where the bad policing in this movie begins. They considered Rubin, and anyone like him, to be a menace to society and locked him up. He escaped from the boy’s home after eight years and tried to make a better life for himself.
Rubin join the Army and gained a new discipline and sense of respect. He became a different man and crushed the expectations everyone else had for him. This part of the movie reminded my of The Other Wes Moore a lot. The author of the book had the same thing to say about his experience in the military and his opportunity to surpass the expectations of others. Back to The Hurricane. On what is portrayed as his first night back in Patterson, Rubin is arrested by the same grumpy cop who locked him up the first time and sent prison, because he “still owes time.” At this point, he is just angry at the world, which I think is fair. He channels his anger and hate into training to be a better box, something they vaguely mentioned him starting when he joined the Army. He spends the next several years in prison training and conditioning.
Upon his release, he vowed to never return to prison, and I honestly think he meant it. He had changed his life once for the better and still ended up behind bars, but he was not going to let it happen again. He wanted to be a good man and be seen as one as well. He begins a profession in boxing, gets married, and has a baby. During this seemingly good time in his life, he still faces a lot of discrimination and racial prejudice.
Late one night, he finds himself in custody at the hands of the grumpy cop who has been plaguing his life since the beginning of the movie. Two men walked into a bar (this sounds like the start of a bad joke) and open fire on the customers and bartender (terrible joke). Two witnesses, lookouts for a robbery that is in progress down the road, real stand-up guys, see the men leave in a white car. Police then begin searching for the vehicle described and pull over Rubin and his young friend, John. When the witnesses are asked initially, they say that Rubin and John are not the men they saw. Later, under the guidance of grumpy cop, they change their minds and say that it is possible that Rubin is one of the men they saw that night. Rubin and John are taken to the hospital to be identified by the only living witness, who happens to be strapped to a hospital bed and in no condition to identify witnesses. He also says the John and Rubin are not the perpetrators of the shooting. After many leading questions, grumpy cop emerges from the shadows and everyone gets really worked up. Let me just point out that there was some seriously shady police work occurring here. They were questioning the witnesses all wrong, but I guess racial prejudice is more important than doing your job. Grumpy cop just does what he wants and gets away with it. Basically, the next thing we know is that John and Rubin are sentenced to serve three life sentences for the murders that occurred in the bar after an all white (and rather old) jury finds them guilty.
After his wrongful conviction, Rubin refuses to be treated like he is guilty. He eats whatever he wants, wears different clothes, and runs on his own schedule. I don’t know how realistic this is, but it helps that he befriended one of the guards (the same guard from Shawshank!) He then writes a book telling his story, which ends up in the hands of teen living with some Canadians (I don’t really understand this whole thing, but whatever). After finishing the book, Lesra writes Rubin in prison. They exchange letters and develop a friendship over time. The Canadians and Lesra visit Rubin and eventually begin to look for ways to help prove his innocence. He has already lost two trials and his appeal, so there is little hope of restoring justice to the situation. After much work, they are able to find enough to show that evidence and accounts were tampered with or withheld to prevent a fair trial. After spending most of his life behind bars, Rubin is released from prison. He then moves to Canada and works to help innocent people overturn their convictions and get out of prison. YAY!

Terms: racial prejudice, stereotypes, witnesses, bad policing, juries, sentencing, leading questions, wrongful conviction, appeal, evidence,

I had never seen or heard of the movie The Hurricane before; it took me a little bit to get into the movie.
In the beginning the boy and Rubin were pulled over by the cops after leaving the bar. The cop explained that they were looking for two black men in a white car and they fit the profile perfectly. The cops then took them to the hospital for the man on his deathbed to identify them as the perpetrators. He was asked, “Are these the men that did this to you?” The man shook his head no. The men were taken to the crime scene where the cops asked the eyewitness the same questions. The eyewitnesses also said that they were not the men who committed the crime.

Even though the eyewitnesses stated that Rubin Carter had nothing to do with the crime, the lead detective was going to see to it that he was accused. The lead detective gave the eyewitness a deal. In exchange for a false testimony that Rubin committed the crime the eyewitness’s records would be cleared. The interview was manipulated and corrupted by the detective. The eyewitnesses were bribed for their testimonies and it was unjust.

The case went to trial and an all white jury found Rubin guilty on all counts. Having an all white jury in the time of extreme racial prejudice is unfair. This was a wrongful conviction; the detectives did not handle this in an appropriate fashion. The detectives did not go through line-ups to find the actual suspect; they just brought two men that fit the profile and asked if they did it or not. No steps were taken that were unbiased because they had one option and the one option the witnesses were forced to take.

The detective that took Rubin down for the crime was the same detective that got him in trouble as a kid. He had harsh interrogations as a child where they played the good-cop bad-cop roles and got him sent to a state house. He escaped but was later caught by the same detective and was put back in prison to serve the rest of his time. This detective definitely had it out for Rubin and he was not going to let it go.

Rubin appealed for his release and re-trial multiple times, but was turned down. His friends decided to help him and go way back in the case and look up all the evidence to make him be a free man. Rubin always knew he was innocent from the very beginning, which made his friends believe him as well. The court finally took his case and heard what the defense had to say about the corruption and lies that had occurred from his previous case. Rubin was exonerated after spending over a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit.

It is crazy how someone can be locked up for many years for a crime they did not commit for misconduct in the justice system.

Terms: eyewitness identification, lead detective, perpetrator, profiling, suspect, victim, eyewitness, crime, testimony, false testimony, interview, manipulation, corruption, jury, verdict, guilty, trial, prejudice, interrogation, good cop bad cop, appeal, evidence, innocence, defense, judge, and exoneration.

The movie The Hurricane was interesting, heartbreaking, and inspiring. The beginning of the story of Rubin Carter is when he is a young boy and gets in trouble with the law. He does something very wrong and it is shown, but it is evident how different the times were then than to how they are now. Carter was only eleven and was arrested. His Miranda rights were not read to him and he did not have a lawyer present at all during any of his time with police. Police used to use beatings and brutality to get confessions from people and when someone is very young it was even more common. Police will either try to scare the suspect or try to false-befriend them to get them to say what they did, many times both of these things worked. And, if someone, even an adult, does not have legal representation available it makes it impossible for the suspect to exercise their rights. Carter is sent away to a type of juvenile detention but escapes after being there for eight years. When Rubin “the Hurricane” Carter is suspected of committing murders, he and an acquaintance are being pulled over. Because the murder suspects were two black males in a white car, they pulled over all black males. This racially profiles anyone who would have been driving around that night, especially if they were in a white car. Rubin Carter was eventually found guilty of being involved with the murders and sentenced to life in prison. The police talk to apparent witnesses of the robbery and murders and there are recordings of their discussions being done. It is standard and now often required for police to record their interrogations, questionings, and statements now. It is clear that the police are directing the witnesses to say what they want to hear, to lie. They are bad witnesses to the crime because they are lying, and we later find out that they might have been the actual perpetrators of the crime – or at least the people robbing the bar. It seems that all of the people in the justice system are working against Rubin Carter so that they can help themselves.
When Rubin Carter arrives at the prison he and the other prisoners are stripped and cleaned, and given a jail outfit with a number. This is to Carter’s protest, but it is done to humiliate and degrade the prisoners so they know that the guards and the warden are the people in charge of their lives now. Carter is thrown into “the hole,” solitary confinement for 90 days for refusing to put on the jail uniform, because guilty men wear those uniforms and he was maintaining his innocence. In the hole Carter beings to overthink things. Over time he starts to hear voices and sounds, he starts to talk to himself and he starts to cry. Extreme psychosis and severe depression are common occurrences among people who have been in solitary confinement for extended amounts of time. This is evident in how disturbed, disheveled, and broken down he looks when his time is finally up. This is one of the main goals of solitary confinement.
Simultaneously as we learn about Carter’s story we meet another young man and three adults. They eventually visit the prison and meet Carter and begin to take extreme interest in his case and his innocence. We find out that there have been two appeals and a separate trial for Carter, he is found guilty for a second time by a different jury. We know that his lawyers were working really hard for the years between trials, and after, to prove his innocence and to get him out of jail. This group of people volunteers their time to dig up information and to look at the case. From researching innocence projects we now know that it takes a lot of effort to prove someone is innocent that has been sent to prison. Today Carter’s case might not have been looked at again or taken on by any innocence projects because there had been a second trial that found him guilty and there was not much more evidence of his innocence. The group of people talks to new people and old people from the previous trials. They dig up more evidence and find faults in old witness testimony. We know that eyewitness testimony is usually the worst but it holds a lot of weight with juries which may be why he was sentenced both times. Another reason that Carter may have been found guilty is because we know that his jury consisted of all white members. At the time this occurred there as a lot of racial tension in the United States and having an all-white jury could have contributed to the finding of Carter guilty. The group works really long hours and for free. They moved from Canada to the United States to be close to Carter and to work with his attorneys. At one point in the movie Carter’s attorneys tell them that many people have tried and given their efforts to proving his innocence but they all eventually give up. Proving that someone has been wrongly imprisoned is a huge task. They were doing everything for free and on their own, they were spending long nights working for someone who could not do it for himself. Because they believed in Carter and they believed in justice, it came through. It took twenty-two years and a HUGE team of people to prove Rubin Carter’s innocence but it finally happened. The case went directly to appeals instead of a lower court to show the new evidence. The attorneys talked about how the police and other judges were trying to extract a type of revenge on Carter and were separately trying to build their careers on his first conviction. This movie is an excellent demonstration of how long it takes to prove someone’s innocence. Many times, in real life and in the movie, evidence is destroyed or witnesses move or die. It is hard to gather new information to prove that someone was wrongly imprisoned, especially if there is no DNA evidence at all or still available. Getting someone out of prison takes a lot of time, money, and effort.

Terms: wrongfully imprisoned, eyewitness, interrogations, coercion, DNA evidence, appeals, solitary confinement, innocence projects, psychosis, depression, Miranda rights, jury

Eye witness was questionable it was extremely dark and they didn't have a direct view of the crime. Cops said that they were just looking for 2 black men in a white car. Also, the person they asked to identify was in critical condition and not in the right state of mind. Even at the time he said that Hurricane and the man he was with weren't the men who shot him. The cop that was at the hospital had it out for Hurricane since he was young. He went to the two witnesses and said that if they said that Hurricane was one of the men that committed the crime that he would dismiss the burglary case against them.
The jury in no way was fair. It was full of white people during a time where racism was rampant. Therefore, his 6th amendment right was violated because he did not have an impartial jury. He was found guilty of three murders and was sentenced to life in prison. When he arrived at the prison he refused to follow the orders of the warden and was sent to solitary confinement.
While in confinement he began having hallucinations. He was seeing and hearing a more violent perception of himself. The stress of being in confinement for 90 days caused him to start having these hallucinations. Also while in confinement, he was denied the right to shower. This violated his 8th Amendment rights because it clearly states that the prisons must meet the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, including access to hygiene items.
The court has denied his right to an appeal as well. He eventually gave up hope on leaving prison. Instead, he spent his time writing a book. He sent his manuscript in and was published. By chance a boy, Lezra, found his book and read it. This boy instantly connected with Hurricane’s story. Lezra wrote letters to Hurricane and finally went to meet him. Hurricane stressed the importance of education and the power of writing.
Meeting Lezra was just as influential for Hurricane as it was for Lezra. Hurricane had a long hatred for white people. Lezra was an uneducated black boy from the inner city that was unable to read. He was brought to Canada by 3 white people and they taught him how to read to help him reach his goal of going to college. When they first meet Hurricane it didn’t go smoothly. Hurricane became defensive when they offered to help him with his appeal. Hurricane then cut the meeting short. Once he received a gift from them all he was ready to let go of his prejudices.
When Lezra hears from Hurricane and he finds out that he lost the appeal Lezra is devastated. Hurricane then resorts to isolation, a defense mechanism he has used all his life. Lezra and his friends weren’t taking no for an answer. They all relocated and went to Hurricane’s lawyers and start reworking his case. They are now going through all of the evidence. They start finding discrepancies in witness’s testimonies and lost evidence. Once they start uncovering these things, the cop that had it out for Hurricane comes and threatens Lezra and his friends. The cop knows that he will be charged for tampering with evidence, forging legal documents and withholding evidence.
When they decide to take it to court, they take a huge risk. They skip the state court and take it right to the federal courts. The reason this is such a great risk is if they take this to the federal court they run the possibility of having all of the evidence they found thrown out and never be admissible in court again. The federal judge decides to consider the evidence and bears the great news that Mr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter is to be released from prison. This is a great representation of true justice.

Hate has put me in prison, love is gonna bust me out. -Rubin Carter

Terms: Justice, admissible in court, federal courts, state courts, withholding evidence, forging legal documents, tampering with evidence, testimonies, discrepancies, evidence, lawyers, defense mechanisms, isolation, prejudices, appeal, eye witness, crimes, cops, right state of mind, burglary case, jury, 6th amendment right, impartial jury, gulity, murders, sentenced to life in prison, warden, solitary confinement, hallucinations, 8th amendment.

Watching the movie The Hurricane was really inspiring to me. It was amazing to see how a boy with a sudden spark of interest can make such a big difference to someone else. Of course this movie tied in with what we have read lately, innocence, but it also tied in many other psychological aspects as well.
One of the chapters that we were assigned to read earlier in the semester was about eye witness identification. This chapter discussed the many factors that go into identifying a suspect successfully. In the movie Hurricane and the young boy he was with both were required to go to the hospital where one of the men who survived the shooting was located. The investigator made this man, literally while lying on the surgery bed about to receive surgery, sit up and view Hurricane in order to make the decision of whether or not he recognized Hurricane as the man who stormed into the bar and started shooting. This is wrong in so many ways. There is no way someone should be convicted because of a statement made while lying in the hospital, bleeding, and hardly even conscious. According to chapter seven in our textbooks “There are many cases in which the testimony of an eyewitness makes the difference between conviction and acquittal. Such testimony is crucial to the criminal justice system because it is often the most compelling evidence presented in the court (Costanzo & Krauss 2012).” Eye witness identification also becomes an issue when two men testify to the investigator that the man they saw leaving the bar after the shooting was Hurricane. The men agree to give this false testimony because they didn’t want to get in trouble for breaking their bale and they were in fact looking out for men who were committing a robbery at the time of the shooting. Even if these men had seen the crime and testified appropriately there would still be many factors to take into consideration. We learned that stress can impair the accuracy of the witness identification and seeing or hearing a shooting would definitely impose quite a bit of stress on a person.
Another aspect of the movie that I thought could be explained using psychology was the scene when Hurricane first arrives at prison. The first psychological aspect present here is that he refuses to dress like a prisoner because he believes he is innocent. This would fall under the aspect of psychology related to not falling into social norms. The norm of prison is to wear the attire associated with it, but Hurricane tries his best to avoid this because he knows he is innocent. However, because he disagreed to wear the prisoner uniform he was sent down to the hole for 90 days. The hole is a dark and dreary place with no natural light, little food, and no time outside of the cell. This led to Hurricane having hallucinations. While he was in the hole, and continuing through out the movie he hears voices. These voices aren’t unusual for people in the state. Hurricane is stuck in a very bad situation. The loss of the relationship with his wife, losing two appeals for his trial, and being stuck in prison for something he did not do definitely could lead to a depressive mood.
The last aspect I want to talk about is the idea that one of the things brought up in Hurricane’s last trials with the state of New Jersey was that he did not receive a fair trial. There was discrimination in the court and jury that lead to Hurricane losing the trial. Although his trial was a long while ago I still hope that this would not happen in our court systems today, but it does. In our textbook we learned about the large amount of blacks in prison over whites. Do you think that’s a coincident or not? Probably not. Which is very disappointing and needs to be fixed.

Not only did I enjoy this movie because it was the last movie and blog post I have to write for the semester WOOHOO!!!! But I also enjoyed it because I found many aspects of psychology throughout the movie.
Terms: depression, hallucinations, racial discrimination, jury, eye witness identification, the hole, acquittal, false testimony, innocence, wrongful conviction

This was not the first time I had watched this movie, I was worried I would get bored; I actually really enjoyed watching it from a psych/law point of view. The overall plot was extremely interesting as it showed several aspects of all of the characters. Rueben Carter had a very rough life, and not only due to his mistakes. He was blamed for a terrible crime he did not commit, this occurred because the detective that worked his previous case was still upset. As Rueben escaped the boys’ home and went into the army. Therefore the detective claimed that Rueben owed him time, and he felt it was easy to pin the murders on him. Essentially Rueben was sent to life in prison for a crime he was not involved in. During the movie it was apparent that racism was occurring and this essentially impacted Rubens life.

It was shocking to see the detective questioning one of the victims that was obviously about to die and was not coherent enough to give an accurate answer as to who shot him. This is where tampering of the forensic evidence as well as eyewitness evidence began to occur. There were a couple individuals who witnessed part of the murders. However their testimonies were changed to benefit the prosecution. Besides the eyewitness testimony probably should have been throw out all together because it was dark, late at night, and nobody was positive as to whom the perpetrators were. Later in the movie when the group began to look over Rueben’s case I was surprised they were able to contact previous eyewitnesses as the crime occurred a long time age. Therefore how accurate would what they said be. Also according to the text eyewitness confidence is likely to increase over time, thus if the witnesses minds were influence by detectives when they were questioned with inaccurate information, they would only explain that same inaccurate information once again. As for the detectives they became so absorbed with proving that Rueben committed the crime. According to the text cognitive dissonance predicts that once you commit yourself to a particular course of action, you will become motivated to justify that course of action. Essentially they probably became to believe that Rueben actually did commit the murders.

Another aspect that was interesting is the fact that Rueben’s jury at both of his trials was all white. This is important to examine because during that time racism was constantly occurring. Thus this may have impacted the jury’s final verdict. I think this is why during Rueben’s final trial his attorney brought this up because times were beginning to change.

Rueben’s mental health was challenged the second he stepped foot in the prison. He refused to change into a prison jumpsuit; this caused him to be punished for the first 90 days. During this time he was not allowed to do anything or leave the cell with had very horrible conditions. He even began to go slightly crazy as he began to have conversations with himself and he would hear voices. Once his 90 days were up he was asked to change, and once again he resisted. The guard was nice and gave Rueben a break by allowing him to wear pajamas. Rueben knew he was not guilty and I think it was very difficult for him to accept his new life. Thus he decided that he would take as much control of his life in prison as he could. He was awake when everyone was sleeping, and he didn’t leave his cell. He felt as though he was in as much control as he possibly could in prison. According to the text there are three goals of imprisonment, as for Rueben he probably felt these were not applicable to him. The first goal is incapacitation which is the idea an inmate is not able to cause any more harm to the outside world. Deterrence is the idea that once an inmate is released they will not commit any more crimes because they do not want to go back to prison. This occurred the first time Ruben went to prison, as he was determined to not get into any more trouble. The last goal is retribution which is the idea that we want to see a person punished for the crime they committed. In Rueben’s he probably would have thought these goals were pointless as he did not commit the crime he was serving time for. Seeing the amount of control he had over his situation made me wonder if this actually occurs in prisons today. I would assume it doesn’t because prisons want to have as much control as possible over their inmates.

Rueben received two trials before his final one, and each time the same evidence seemed to be presented in the same way. Once the group began to uncover what had really happened in Rueben’s case it was obvious he had been discriminated against and pinned with a crime he was not guilty of. Basically Rueben’s life was in control of individuals who disliked him in any way possible, without having a reason. This movie made me think about people who are in prison for crimes they did not commit. I can’t even imagine what it would feel like to be stuck in a horrible place knowing you shouldn’t be there, and you don’t know how or if you will ever be free. Therefore expressing the importance of the entire process from start to the final verdict.

Overall Rueben was an amazing individual who had a lot of courage and strength to not lose hope in his case. He was determined to find a way to get out of prison and get his freedom back. This movie expressed several psychological aspects as well as legal. It was interesting to learn about Rueben Carter’s life and the impact it had on others, for example the teenager in the movie. I really enjoyed watching it from a psych/law point of view.

Terms: detective, forensic evidence, eyewitness, prosecution, testimony, cognitive dissonance, jury, mental health, prison, incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, trials, evidence, discriminated, guilty, verdict,

So instead of the Hurricane on Tuesday we watched the Conviction instead. Dr. Maclin didn’t have her copy of Hurricane. Conviction was the story of a Single mom with two kids that became a lawyer to help out her brother in prison due his claim of innocence. This is based on a true story.
Kenny and Betty Anne Waters are two kids who had a rough upbringing and most would call them trailer trash. Their mom, who was a prostitute, didn’t spend much time with them and this lead to them getting into lots of mischief. Because of their low-income life the two of them (largely Kenny) would break into nicer places and pretend it was theirs for a time being. Obviously this got them into a lot of trouble with the police. As they grew older Kenny would get into more and more trouble and the police went to him whenever something happened in town. The movie starts off however, with Kenny being arrested for the murder of his neighbor. A Female cop named Nancy Taylor doesn’t particularly like Kenny and is quite rude to him. At first he is let go of the charges of murder, but is later arrested due to new evidence being brought up namely two witnesses that can attest to him admitting that he had done it. I have to wonder if that would be allowed into evidence since I would think it would be hearsay. 3 years later when Betty Anne doesn’t hear from Kenny for awhile she gets worried and is later told he attempted to commit suicide. She then decides to go back to school and finish her highschool and go to college to become a lawyer. She then struggles to go to college while she raises her two kids. She works as a bartender where she meets what later will be her best friend, a classmate of hers named Abra. Eventually her kids want to go live with their dad. Demoralised by this Betty stops going to school and lets her grades slip. Abra convinces her to go back to school, where in a study group she learns about some new form of evidence called DNA testing. This is where we can start linking the story in with what we learned in class. After she passes the Bar exam she starts to look towards exonerating Kenny with this DNA evidence. She writes to Barry Scheck from the Innocence Project in an attempt to have him help with the case. However, since she became an attorney she can start the process herself. She starts by looking at the police station in the town Kenny was arrested and learns that the evidence would have been moved to the courthouse. When she attempts to find the evidence at the courthouse she is told that they would have destroyed the evidence a few years back as they don’t hold evidence that long. Regardless of this information she presses on trying to find any evidence she can. Back when Kenny was convicted part of the evidence said that the type of blood matched Kenny’s at the scene of the crime ( O) however DNA testing wasn’t available at the time so that’s the best they could do to match it. Also during this time Betty finds out that Taylor the cop who arrested Kenny had been fired a few years back for fabricating evidence in another trial. Spurred by this information she actually visits Taylor at her new job where she of course denies having done the same with Kenny’s trial. Later Betty actually checks the courthouse herself and finds the evidence. She sends in the blood reports to check to see if there would be a match or not. It comes back and she is heartened to hear that it was not Kenny’s. Despite this though that’s not enough evidence to overturn the conviction due to the witnesses testimony. After this Better visits the two different witnesses who admit to Taylor coercing them into giving false testimony. With both pieces of this new evidence Betty gets the conviction overturned and Kenny is released from prison after 18 years. He has a hard time adjusting especially when confronted with dealing with his daughter who her entire life has never seen her dad. Not said in the movie but I figured out that sadly Kenny died 6 months after being released from prison and the family settled on the civil court cases for a large sum. Taylor wasn’t brought up on any charges either because the statue of limitations had expired.
So lots of different things that we have talked about in class. 1. Not every eyewitness or witness in general can be trusted to give completely honest and truthful information. This could be either due to them not remembering things correctly or them lying about it for some reason. Even the cross examination on one of the witnesses brought up a good point. After they said Kenny admitted to killing the lady, they stayed in a relationship with them for a good amount of time. That being said they stayed with someone they thought was a murderer. If that had been brought up in case I would have pushed that envelope a little further. 2. The coercion of police members. In this case SGT. Nancy taylor coerced the two witnesses into providing false evidence in this trial. We talked about this in class and while it was illegal for her to do so she didn’t get charged with it due a loophole. I think this is wrong on so many levels. Not only that but cops might not always get caught doing this. How many people have been sent to prison due to false information given or coerced by a cop illegally. 3. We actually talked about the innocence project in itself and how many people were exonerated due to evidence regarding DNA after it became available. Further on that we actually discussed many different forms of evidence and the validity of it. Many different forms of evidence have now lost a lot of grandeur over the years. I think eye witness should be the next one personally. But it is interesting to think about what form of evidence in the future could be brought up and if it does how many more people will be exonerated due to it. The DNA evidence revolution to me was one of the most important finds in Forensic works.
So I had a hard time finding anything monumental to look at the for psychology here. I suppose one could look at being in prison 18 years and the effect that could have on someone. It is stated in the movie that he attempted to kill himself because he thought that he had no hopes of getting out of prison. So we go back to many people getting very depressed as they sit in prison. Again I point out that it is almost cruel and unusual punishment to put someone in prison and literally shut out all hope of them ever leaving there. Hope is something that everyone needs and when you give someone multiple life sentances with no chance of parole they have nothing to live for. Not only that but prison as discussed in the book is a correctional facility meant to change people to the point where they wont commit crimes anymore. If you convict someone for life what is the point of the prison they wont change who they are because why would they if they never get released. The psychological damage of that knowledge to any prisoner im sure would be very bad. Another aspect of psychology for this movie could be looked at how they were raised and the effects that had on their personality. It is mentioned that Kenny is the town screw up, and that he is constantly picked on by the cops. Every crime that happens they believe him to do it. It is stated that the mom in the movie had 9 children by 7 different guys. And with never paying attention to them it can be quite obvious why they wouldn’t be raised properly and why they turned out the way they did. Because of them not having a maternal figure though Betty and Kenny got to be very close through their childhood because that’s all they had was each other. One final Psychological aspect can be looked at Betty. The sheer will to make yourself go through middle school, highschool, and law school all to help out your brother, coming from a nothing background is astounding. I myself would have a hard time going through law school, and yet someone with a very minor education, 2 kids, a job managed to do it. The psychological effect of a stimulus vs an outcome can be looked at in this case. She had a major stimulus or motivation to overcome the difficulties and become a lawyer to help out her brother. Whereas 90% of the people in that same situation wouldn’t have been able to manage it.
Overall a very interesting movie. I was surprised and saddened to hear about kenny’s death after his release, but glad that the family settled for a very large amount.

I had never heard of this movie before this class. However, I really enjoyed it. It was beautiful insight of prison from the prisoner’s perspective. I felt the movie was a perfect example of the flaws our criminal justice system has. It makes me sad to know that this movie was based on a true story and was not the creation of a screenwriter.
A huge aspect of the movie is the corruption of the police in Paterson, New Jersey. This psychological aspect is seen throughout the length of the movie. At the very beginning of the movie, Rubin and John are taken into the operating room of one of the victims. When the officer asks the victim to give an identification of them, the man gives a slight shake of his head. However, the officer pushes the man to take a second look and demands Rubin to step closer. This is also seen when Rubin and John walk into the crime scene. The two men who witnessed the crime (one of which we find out later, lied about the racial description of the shooters) shook their heads when the investigating officers asked if Rubin and John were the perpetrators.
As we see later in the movie, the police in charge of the investigation of the case either left out very important details or changed evidence. One of the important pieces of evidence we see changed is the eyewitnesses’ statements. Della Pesca is seen offering one of the witnesses a deal if he states that the man he saw go into the bar and shoot the victims was Rubin Carter. We also find out that the 9-1-1 call time card had been changed to a later time in order to pin the crime on Rubin and John. A piece of evidence that had been left out was a key eyewitness’s statement that Rubin was clearly not the killer along with a police report about the correct information of the crime. Another thing the viewers did not see during the movie was the admission of trace evidence against Rubin or John. One of the main reasons as to why people are convicted of life or death sentences is due to police error. In The Hurricane we can see that it is because of the corrupt investigation. Throughout Rubin’s life, Della Pesca seemed to be trying to find any reason to lock him up. Once he was taken to prison, Rubin refused to wear anything that had the appearance of the prison. He was even put into the hole for 90 days due to not wanting to wear the prison scrubs. We also see him throughout the movie eating food from a can, because he even refused to eat anything from the prison. When typing his manuscript, Rubin talks about his lack of cooperation with the criminal justice system. He believed that if he gave in and wore the scrubs and ate the food, he would be letting the injustices win.
Another psychological aspect in the movie is the perceived “fair” trial by their peers that Rubin and John were given. When the jury and judge were shown, all of the members were white. All the police investigating the case were white as well. This shows the racial biases during the time the crime occurred. However, this racial bias has not disappeared. Our textbook states that African-American men are more likely to be convicted of a crime where the victim is white. They are also more likely to receive the death sentence. In Rubin Carter’s case, he was sentenced to three lifetimes in prison (one for each of the victims). After he lost his second trial and was denied for a third, Rubin lost all hope that he would ever leave prison. His lawyers told him that after being found guilty by a second jury, it would be unlikely that the federal court judge would listen to his case. If Rubin wanted to get out of prison, he would have a difficult time proving that the juries that convicted him acted with racial prejudice. However, if Rubin had not changed his venue, he would have been resentenced by the same corrupt and biased people who put him into prison the first time. This change of venue put the risk of losing all of the newfound evidence. If the judge decided the case had already been resolved, all of the new evidence would be inadmissible in any court from then on. Rubin felt this was his only way to receive a fair trial and pushed his case anyways.
Key words: Coercion, eyewitness, trace evidence, corrupt investigation, trial, appeal, jury, racial prejudice, change of venue, and inadmissible evidence

The movie “The Hurricane” was an amazing movie. I honestly haven’t been moved by a movie in a long time; however, this movie moved me in a way that I can’t explain. I think that the reason that it moved me so much was the fact that it was based on a true story. I couldn’t believe that an innocent man could be sentenced to three life sentences. I honestly got so mad when they said that Ruben was guilty. There were multiple reasons why I got mad, however, the first reason was the racism that took place in the film. I couldn’t believe the first scene when Ruben was a kid and he stabbed that guy for attempting to kill him, and then he gets in trouble. The prosecutor/ detective made me sick. I couldn’t believe the things that he did to make sure that Ruben would be sentenced to jail. The racism is something that we have talked about it class. We have talked about it in multiple Supreme Court cases that have to deal with racism in the courts and how that a jury of your peers shouldn’t be biased against you. The scene that comes to mind in the movie is when Ruben looks over at the jury and they are all white. The Supreme Court case that we have talked about in class in Furman v. Georgia; in this case, the Supreme Court found that juries were often sentencing African Americans to death more often than white men; sometimes even if they had committed the same crime. This honestly made me really sick to my stomach, because of the fact that I started to think about all the innocent people that have been sentenced to prison who actually have done nothing wrong. It honestly made me loose most of my hope in the justice system itself. The next area in the film that I got mad about was the process of interrogation that the police actually did when Ruben was young and when he was older. The scenes that come to mind is when the police grab little Ruben and say he will be speaking after he gets done with him. The next scene that comes to mind is when they bring Ruben and the other guy into the Hospital and they ask the man if these are the two individuals who shot the people in the bar; he of course says no. Then that stupid prosecutor/ detective comes in and asks him to double check. First off, that just shows police bias, and since Ruben was a famous person, his picture could have been seen somewhere and the man could have placed Ruben’s face in the place of one of the guys that actually shot up the place. The other thing about this that was a little sketchy was the fact that the police detective basically told the two gentlemen, who mind you said that it wasn’t Ruben and the other guy, that if they confessed that one of the guys that shot up the place, that the whole robbery thing would just go away. I honestly couldn’t believe that they did this. This is just another reason why I hate the police force and the justice system. We have talked about in class about how Ronald Cotton was sentenced to jail and spent almost 10 years in prison before the actual rapist was found. The victim was for sure that the person who did it was Ronald Cotton. Why was she so certain? The police did what we like to call ask leading questions and basically made sure that she thought it was him. We see this in the film when the prosecutor asks for him to double check to make sure that he wasn’t mistaken. I couldn’t believe that that had actually happened when I was watching the film. It honestly made me get a little upset with the fact that an innocent man was basically getting screwed over because of the fact that he wasn’t on good terms with the prosecuting attorney. The next area that pissed me off in the film was the fact that the prison system wasn’t accomplishing its goal. It’s goal was to make sure that they turn out individuals better than when they came in, I honestly got really made at the fact that Ruben actually became a little insane being in prison. The example that I think of was when Ruben was sent to hole for 90 days. This is where we saw a couple of different areas of psychology such as people creating an alternate personality to deal with the stresses of not having human contact for such a long period of time. I instantly thought of the movie primal fear and how Roy had an alternate personality to deal with the stresses. It almost seemed the Ruben created the “hurricane” to deal with the stresses of actually being in prison. The next area that I saw some psychology and law in the film was the actual trial process that Ruben was going through. He had gone through two trials and finally an appealed to the Federal court. The one line in the movie that stuck with me was the fact that Ruben was talking about how important people had made their lives and careers off of this case. I couldn’t believe that the justice system could ignore evidence just to make sure that they weren’t proven wrong. This brings me to my next point about how the evidence that they collected had been tampered with. I couldn’t believe that the court had actually let some of this evidence go through. The evidence that really stuck out to me was the fact that the phone records had been tampered with. I also found it very interesting that Ruben noticed that the handwriting was the handwriting of the main prosecutor in charge. I couldn’t believe the fact that these people had allowed something like this to happen. Another area of psychology that we see in the movie is the whole memory process. Memories are very important when it comes to this film because of the fact that a person must be able to encode, have storage, and recall of the information that are stored. This information over time can be tampered with and can be forgotten. The example from the movie is when the lady went from saying that it might have been Ruben to a 100% positive that it was Ruben at the end of the film. I couldn’t believe this because of the fact that the criminal justice system is something that I actually used to have faith in, and now I don’t. Another area of psychology and law that I saw in the film is the fact that there are innocent people in prison. The whole goal of our prison system is to make sure that the right person gets sentenced to prison. I couldn’t believe that they sentenced him to jail even after all the evidence that they had seemed to point in the opposite direction. This leads into another point that the evidence and trial process is all about how the jury members view the information that is told to them. In the story model, the jury makes their decision based on which story of the information presented seems to make the most sense. In the case of the film, they believed that the prosecution was correct. Overall this was a very interesting film and I am glad that I got to watch it.
Terms: story model, evidence, innocent, encode, storage, recall, trials, alternate personality, leading questions, interrogation, Furman v. Georgia

What a good movie. Denzel Washington is an awesome actor. This movie also reminded me a lot of Shawshank Redemption (the prison guard was even the same guy!). And while watching this movie, I could definitely see a lot of terms from our textbook being demonstrated.

First off, in the beginning of the movie, I can see the cross-race effect coming into play. The first is when the injured victim is shown Rubin - the police ask if this is the man that shot him. The cross-race effect states that it is difficult for witnesses to identify criminals that are a different race than them (we see this in the example given in the book - Ronald Cotton). I feel as though the eyewitness would not be able to make a 100% accurate identification because of the cross-race effect. Other things that the police need to take into account are known as estimator variables. These are defined as variables affecting the accuracy of eyewitness memory that are out of the justice system’s control. In this scene, there are many estimator variables. First off, we need to take into account that this man is seriously injured; his vision may be altered (it looked like blood had leaked into his eyes) or he may be so disoriented from all of the recent events. Also, the weapon-focus effect may have come into play, making the eyewitness less likely to focus on the man’s face. Honestly, the police really should not have been questioning this poor victim right as he was arriving in the hospital. Another thing I was thinking about - he may not even have gotten a good look at his shooters!

The opposite of this, system variables, are the part that is within the control of the justice system. The only thing I could really think of as an example of a system variable in the hospital scene is the room lighting. If the police weren’t so shady and corrupt, they could’ve made sure the lighting was adequate enough, so the victim could make a positive or negative identification. This is a variable within the police officers’ control, that could affect the accuracy of an eyewitness testimony or identification.

I was really troubled by the changing story of the two eyewitnesses who were violating their parole during an attempted burglary. Initially, when present at the crime scene, these men said that Rubin was not the shooter. We know that later on, they positively identified Rubin, not because they actually saw him there, but because they were afraid of the consequences they might face from their parole violation. However, I also wonder if some cognitive dissonance came into play here. I’m thinking that the men, after telling the police that it was, indeed, Rubin Carter, attempted to unconsciously convince themselves that their identification was correct. This also relates to the post-identification feedback effect. Receiving positive feedback from the officer helped them to unconsciously become more sure of their testimony.

Also relating to this scene is leading and suggestive questioning. This is very apparent when the detective is talking with the two eyewitnesses. First, he starts off by subtly blackmailing them, then very clearly asks if one of the two shooters could possibly be Rubin Carter. Very leading. I also related this to bias-reducing instruction, mainly because this was absolutely the complete opposite! The men were made very clear that they must choose Rubin. In a less corrupt lineup or interrogation, police officers should let eyewitnesses know that they can choose none of the options; they don’t have to pick one man out of the group. This was definitely a biased detective.

I also wanted to discuss the jury. First off, the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 states that the court must have a jury that represents a good cross section of the community. Obviously, we know this didn’t occur in Carter’s trial, because the jury was all white, and because his murder trial occurred before this act was in place. Also, the amount of juror bias is obviously strong. The high level of racism, especially since the victims were white, was definitely a big factor in the jury’s verdict. I feel like this even relates to the similarity-leniency effect. This effect states that when jury members feel a connection or similarity to the defendant, they are more likely to empathize and give out more lenient sentences (or even a not guilty verdict!). None of the jurors really had anything in common with Carter, so none really sympathized with him. This may have played a huge role in their verdict decision.

Lastly, though it doesn’t really relate to psychology, I wanted to discuss the police work seen in this movie. The tampering with the 911 call time, the trace evidence planted, and the bribed witnesses all really disgusted me. It made me wonder - does shady police work still occur today? I understand that this movie takes place during a time of extreme racism, so I blamed it on that. But it still bothers me. It would be interesting to have an inside look at police and how they conduct investigations, and see if this type of corrupt stuff still happens.

Key Terms: Cross-Race Effect, Estimator Variables, Weapon-Focus Effect, System Variables, Cognitive Dissonance, Post-Identification Feedback Effect, Leading and Suggestive Questions, Bias-Reducing Instruction, Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, Juror Bias, Similarity-Leniency Effect

As the credits rolled I read that Rubin Carter is executive director of the Association in Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted. He held that position from 1993 to 2005. That bit of information coincides directly with the innocence projects we read about for our Tuesday blog post. While the innocence projects dealt with cases that occurred in the United States, the AIDWYC is a non-profit organization based out of Toronto that essentially helps counsel and prevent wrongful convictions. It is nice to see Carter using his knowledge of his case to others benefits.

One thing I noticed during the film and it was being harped on towards the end of the film is that Hurricane already received two trials in front of two different juries. It is worth noting that the juries showed in the film were all white. According to the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, federal and state courts must assemble juries that constitute a “fair cross-section of the community.” That was not the case for Mr. Carter. Any thought of him being acquitted of charges because of racial discrimination was thrown out the window when the jury was assembled. Especially during the 60's and 70's when racism was at its peak, its unfair to have an all white jury. Chapter 6 of our textbook introduces the term cognizable groups in regards to jurors. The thought behind a cognizable group is that there is no intent to exclude any potential juror on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Members of a juror are cognizable in the sense that they are recognized as sharing a characteristic or attitude that distinguishes them from other potential jurors. In Hurricane Carter's case this aspect was violated by corruption of the police force. Had they intentionally excluded black members from being part of the juror because they would feel more sympathy than a typical white man might during the epitome of the racial era? One particular case I read about in the textbook correlates well with Carter's case. In Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the Supreme Court ruled that James Batson, a black man, had been denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Prosecutors used all of there peremptory challenges to exclude any black jurors in the venire. This case was tried in court years after Carter was convicted so it makes me wonder how much of an effort the prosecution put in to secure an all white jury.

Secondly, during Carter's prison sentence he tried to keep his identity as much as possible. When he first arrives at prison he tells the warden he did not commit those crimes therefore he refuses to wear the clothes of a criminal. This is the first step of him keeping his identity. As long as he doesn't have to wear prison clothes with an inmate number, he is just a man trapped inside a 6 by 10 foot cell for the rest of his life. Hurricane gives a monologue during his time in prison where he says he sleeps when everyone else is awake and is awake when everyone else is asleep. Furthermore, as long as he doesn't eat the prison cafeteria food, he can remain free from relying on others for survival. His attitudes directly interfere with the harshness of prison life. Chapter 16 discusses the role of identity when an inmate serves prison time. “Prison not only robs you of your freedom, it attempts to take away your identity. Everyone wears the same uniform, eats the same food, follows the same schedule. It is by definition a purely authoritarian state that tolerates no independence and individuality.” However that quote does not describe the attitudes of Hurricane Carter when he was imprisoned. He took the necessary precautions to make sure he wasn't thought of as another inmate. He even went through drastic measures to make sure he wasn't stripped of his identity. Spending three months in solitary confinement can make a man insane, and Carter was well on his way to becoming insane, but he remained strong during those first three months and established himself as a man not easy to break.

I'd like to discuss the differences between Rubin Carter in The Hurricane and Andy Dufresne from Shawshank Redemption in regards to their prison life. First the similarities, both men were tried and convicted of murder but were wrongfully accused. Both men were arguably mentally stronger and wiser than the average prison inmate as shown by their strong mental desire not to have their identities taken away from them. However, Rubin Carter was a black male and faced racial prejudice as a result of his crimes. In addition, Rubin Carter showed a willingness to serve his prison time diligently regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty. Andy Dufresne was looking for a way out from day one, he knew he was innocent and couldn't stand to remain in a place where the guilty were held. The main difference in regards to how both men handled prison was the way they became accustomed to the rituals of the prison. Dufresne got a job, made friends, and slowly became another inmate in the prison. Hurricane Carter tried his hardest not to become accustomed to prison life as evidenced by his strong desire to not wear prison clothing. As long as his identity wasn't misshaped by prison life, he could remain a free even behind bars. Andy Dufresne took it to the extreme and broke out of prison in order to literally become a free man.

Terms used: Association in Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted, Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, cognizable, Batson v. Kentucky (1986), peremptory challenges, venire

The Hurricane is a movie about the wrongful imprisonment of a professional boxer named Carter “The Hurricane” Carter for murder of. In the opening scenes, Carter is shown in prison, upset that the guards want to toss his cell and look for contraband. Carter has been writing a manifesto detailing how he is innocent of the crimes he was convicted of and he believes that is his only hope of getting out of prison. A flashback is then shown of the night that Carter was arrested for the crime. In this scene, Carter and the friend that was driving him are taken to the hospital where the man is being treated. The police ask the man if Carter and his friend are the two men who shot him. The man initially says no and Carter is asked to step closer to the man so he can get a better look. This scene displays two concepts from this class, one of which may be the cross-race effect, as the man who had been shot was white and Carter and his friend are both black. Another concept that brings an objection about the scene is that the man is clearly in a large amount of pain from his wounds and can’t even lift his own head. The stress from such an event would cause his judgment to be significantly impaired and he likely wouldn’t be able to accurately judge the appearance of Carter, especially when this is compounded with the cross-race effect. This scene also shows a racial bias of at least one of the police against black males, with one of the officers apparently having a personal vendetta against Carter. This is shown again in another flashback where the same officer convinces one of the witnesses to give false testimony saying the person who committed the murder was Carter.

Later on, another flashback is shown, this time of Carter as a young boy. He and his friends are playing down by the falls and a man approaches them and starts inappropriately touching one of the boys. Carter tells the man to stop and eventually throws a bottle at him. The man then attempts to throw Carter off the falls and Carter stabs him in the arm with a knife he had. Carter is then shown being interrogated by the police and one of the officers happens to be the one in the previous flashback. During this, the police use a lot of intimidation, saying they know what happened and that Carter needs to tell them. The two officers interrogating Carter also use the good cop/bad cop routine. Carter is eventually sentenced to a home for boys until he is age 21 as a punishment. The judge is clearly shown to be biased against Carter as well, saying that if he could, he would send the 11 year old Carter to prison.

Later, once Carter is sent to prison, he is thrown into the hole for 90 days. While in there, the effects of the isolation are shown as Carter slowly begins to lose sanity. He begins talking to himself and is shown to go through extreme emotional distress. One officer is shown to treat Carter with respect, granting him certain special privileges in order to gain his compliance. While in prison, Carter studies his case, trying to find a way to gain another trial and prove his innocence. Carter eventually gains a new trial but is convicted again and his motion for an appeal gets denied. Throughout his sentence, Carter eventually begins writing a boy who read his book. The boy and his friends begin to help Carter prove his innocence and eventually find enough evidence to prove that Carter didn’t receive a fair trial due to evidence that could have proved his innocence being withheld by the police. Carter is then released from prison and works to help others prove their innocence like the boy and his Canadian friends helped him.
This movie is a good example of how difficult it can be to prove innocence without the use of DNA evidence. It is also a good parallel to the story of Ronald Cotton in Picking Cotton. This movie shows the effect that prison can have on a person and serves as another example to why more attention should be paid to people in prison like Rubin Carter and Ronald Cotton, who maintain an effort to prove their innocence despite years of struggling.

Terms: interrogation, good cop/bad cop, cross-race effect, bias, stress, racial bias, emotional distress, DNA evidence, innocence

Hurricane was a great movie. First I thought it was a little weird and hard to follow but then towards the middle everything started making sense! If anyone wants to watch a sad movie, then Hurricane is for you.
I really felt bad for hurricane because since the age of 11 he had been in and out of prison, all for crimes that he did not commit. The police officer in charge of his trial was really bias, raciest, and harsh towards him. At ladies night, he had asked if a kid had wanted to drive him home. The kid was super excited and relied immediately with a yes. Not even a few minutes after they left two men came into the place where ladies night was held and killed the people there. Police pulled over the Hurricanes car and arrested both him, and the kid driving.
During the trial they had eyewitnesses come forward. Eyewitness identification is a problem in convicting perpetrators and identifying suspects. Witnesses are relying on memory when picking out a suspect from a line-up. Psychologists who study memory have distinguished between three processes, encoding, storage, and retrieval. Encoding is when you gather information so it can be held in memory. In order to encode a memory you have to be able to detect the stimulus in other words sensation and perception. Storage is when your brain holds that information for a long period of time. Retrieval is remembering and pulling out the stored information at a later date and time. The booked linked this idea to a video recording, which is a great metaphor but it understates the complexity of the human memory. There are many stages in remembering and the perception of something might not be that great as what they thought. There are also flaws in the storage of memories… Memory Trace is the biochemical representation of our experience in the bran and it goes away, or deteriorates with time. If someone asked me to remember the person that I talked to during lunch hour yesterday I would not be able to recall it because I forgot as the time passed. Not only does time pass and we forgot, but also our memory trace.
Sometimes the only evidence we have is an eyewitness, which is great, but we also shouldn’t rely only on the memory of a person who may not have been in the right state of mind at the time. They also might not have the cognitive ability to memorize it also because of what I talked about early with memory loss over time and the brain deteriorating. Mistaken convictions played a role in 76% of all cases where wrongly convicted persons were released from prison because DNA testing proved they were innocent.
Throughout the process of discovering what the brain is capable of and what not, the courts have come up with five things that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the accuracy of an eyewitness’s identification. It includes how well the witness got to view the criminal and their level of attention. The accuracy of the description of the offender, the degree of certainty, and the amount of time between witnessing the crime and making identification. Sometimes during a trial psychologists come in and give advice on the trial. It could be questioning whether or not the lighting was good or bad, dark, light, etc. In order to get a good view… Was he wearing a mask? Another thing that the legal system has to take into consideration is that most people are better at identifying people of their own race, which is called cross-race effect. In developmental psychology, it has been proven that babies, at such a young age also recognize people of their own ethnic better than others. These types of questions is how the legal system attempts to expose eyewitness bias. Another thing that we have to keep in mind, is that if someone were to walk into my room right now with a weapon, we would automatally focus and connect our perception on the weapon, therefore prohibiting the recognitazation of the face at a later date, which is called weapon-focus effect.
Eyewitness identification came into play with Hurricanes case because the police contaminated the evidence. The peoples statements that said it was not hurricane were all thrown out. Another thing about identification is the cross race effect; it is harder for people to recognize the faces of people outside their racial group than it is for people to recognize the faces of people within their racial group. This movie was great and had many psychological aspects to it, I would for sure recommend it to others!It really makes you think about people who may be sitting in jail for crimes that they did not commit.
Cross-Race Effect, Manson Criteria, Memory Trace, Encoding, Storage, Retrieval, Line-Up, Weapon-Focus Effect, cross-race effect

Rubin “The Hurricane” Carter is surrounded by the legal system his entire life. The normal situation is the result of a racist detective or police force. Growing up he was like many other African American's in his time, impoverished and hated by society. This hatred was conveyed by his criminal charges from day one. By Carter's mid 20's he had already spent half of his year in prison. Not to mention the time he severed was not true justice but racism in the justice system. This sense of discrimination turned into rage that fulled Carter's prestigious fighting career. As we all saw, his life in the spot light didn't last long when he was pinned for a triple homicide; by the same set of detectives and courts that have been racially prejudice towards Carter his whole life. This film shows the real nature of bias and discrimination in the legal system, not only the courtroom. Psychological terms that effected the outcome of Carter's trail and prosecution ranged from false eyewitness testimony, tampering with evidence, and extreme racism by almost everyone involved in the trial.
Like most flawed criminal trials, the true problems start with the investigation. The false conviction of Rubin Carter is no different. Carter was charged on three separate counts of murder. These cold blooded murders have a number of witnesses. Some of these witnesses saw the actual two shooters, some witnesses saw the getaway car and others just heard the shots. Carter also had some non neutral factors playing against him in this case as well. He just happened to be in a very similar white, Dodge sedan that night. He was also accompanied by another African American man. Only one witness stated that the shooters were African American. This one witness convinced the other witnesses and police department that the shooters, were in fact, black. Other witness also gave testimony to the car. I will say the two cars looked very similar in the movie. However, one key fact was not taken into consideration by the police detectives when arresting Carter and his driver. A witness that lived above the bar stated the taillights of the car looked like that of a butterfly. Carters car did not have those same taillight features.
The majority of error in this case come from the corrupt police department. Evidence was not taken properly, eyewitness testimony was not taken, and many of the eyewitness were pushed by the police force to lie about what they had saw in order to get Carter for the murders. The eyewitness at the scene of the murders stated clearly that Carter and his driver were not the men who did it. With further pushing an coercing by the detectives many of the eyewitness suddenly remembered it was Carter who committed the murder. The contamination of the eyewitness reports and memories was well over done. How the police forced eyewitnesses to lie was a little Hollywood for me, but we have to remember this is based on a true story. Taking into consideration that the majority of these events actually did happen, we must also understand the time period. In the late 1960's many of the major police departments were corrupt and paid off. It is very possible that in the 60' and 70' the police could have very easily persuaded witnesses to lie and contaminated evidence with forgery.
Carter's actual court proceeding was also very bias and racially driven. Both trials he had in New Jersey were served by the same court but with a different, white jury. The prosecution, judge, and jury was all loaded with racist white individuals. Racial profiling by the court and by the police was a major problem in the Carter case.
Physical trace evidence was not presented to the court and may details were left out of the case and trail by the detectives and prosecution. Combine that with a racially motivated jury and courtroom, you have disaster. Rubin was on the fore front of that disaster. With his new friends an experts, he was only able to obtain a fair trial in Federal Court. A court that was not racially motivated followed by the real evidence and testimony from the crime set Carter free. The real enemy of Carter's case was racism and corruption in the justice system. In modern time we can only hope that such destructive ways are long gone.

Key Terms: psychology, legal system, prosecution, jury, judge, racism, racial profiling, trace evidence, justice system, eyewitness testimony, eyewitness memory, corruption, bias, contamination of evidence, forgery, federal court.

Last night I watched the movie The Hurricane, starring one of my favorite actors: Denzel Washington. In this movie, Denzel portrayed a real life person named Reuben Carter that was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to three life sentences. While in prison, Reuben wrote an autobiography about his life, that fell into the hands of a teenager in Canada. This teen and his caregivers took special interest in Reuben's situation, and moved closer to the prison he was held at. They worked tirelessly until Reuben's case was appealed to the federal court and his conviction was overturned. Throughout watching this film I saw many terms and themes prevalent that related to our class and the field of psychology.

First of all, was the fact that Reuben was initially sentenced to three consecutive life terms, one for each murder. Because this was a capital offense, Reuben could have received the death penalty. The court would have used guided discretion in his trial, which is a two-phase hearing. The first phase would have been to determine whether he was guilty of the charges against him. The second phase, called the penalty phase, would have weighed Reuben's aggravating factors against his mitigating factors in order to determine his sentence. He could have either received the death penalty or life in prison without parole, which he did...three times.

Next, I noticed many problems with the trial and evidence. First of all, there was no hard evidence or forensic evidence that even place Reuben at the scene of the crime. Conviction mainly rested on false eyewitness identification that was either lied about or the gained through the use of coercion. They also asked a man who was being operated on whether or not Reuben was the man that shot him. The man answered no the first time and the told him to look again. I don't think that anyone in that type of position is in the right state of mind to identify a witness, and the fact that they kept asking him made it seem they wanted him to confirm what they wanted. This seems like post identification feedback to me in that the biased feedback distorts the memory of the witness and may lead them to accuse the wrong person. White people also may have had trouble identifying the perpetrators due to the cross-race effect.

The next problem I had with the trial was the jury. We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers, yet Reuben was judged by an all white jury. Since this was a capital offense, the jury was probably death qualified and willing to give Reuben the death penalty. I also learned in class that black defendants are more likely to be convicted if the victims of the crime were white, which they were. Because the jury was all white, there would be no similarity-leniency hypothesis in that the jurors would have been more lenient on someone they viewed as similar.

Once Reuben was convicted and put in prison for life, I begin to notice many things prevalent in psychology. First, when he would not put on prison clothes, they threw him in the hole for 90 days. They warden wanted to use desensitization on him in order for him to lose his will and hope and become quicker accustomed to the prison life, a process called prisonization. They wanted to break him down mentally and psychologically. We begin to see the affect of this when Reuben develops multiple personalities, which I learned about in abnormal psychology. Reuben develops these personalities in order to cope with the stress of his situation. He slowly begins to lose it in there, the effects which remain even when he is removed. This whole process reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment, especially when Reuben says he is treated as less than human.

The last thing that I will discuss is the three main themes that I think are apparent in this movie. They are the abundance of corruption and racial profiling by the police and the overall wrongful conviction. The main investigator in this film has always had it out for Reuben his entire life and jumps at the chance to lock him up for good. He uses racial profiling to pin a crime committed by two African Americans that no one verified to be Reuben. Although this movie is based off a true story and I don't know for sure if it really happened like this, I am sure this has happened elsewhere in real life. Police are supposed to serve the best interests of the people, not their own prejudices, biases, and personal agendas. Overall, this movie is about the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of an innocent man. It reminds us that their are in fact innocent people wrongfully imprisoned and working hard on their own to win their freedom back. Aiding them in their struggles are programs like the Innocence Project, whose members work tirelessly to free those by reversing their wrongful convictions. This movie also reminds us just how precious our freedom is and not to take it for granted.

Terms: Innocence Project, Stanford Prison Experiment, Prisonization, Similarity-leniency Hypothesis, Perpetrator, Cross-race Effect, Post Identification Feedback, Aggravating Factors, Mitigating Factors, Death Penalty, Guided Discretion, Corruption, Desensitization, Split Personality, Wrongful Conviction, Police Coercion, Racial Profiling, Eyewitness Identification

The movie The Hurricane exemplifies many aspects from our book both psychological and legal. From eyewitness testimony, errors and mistakes made by the justice system, interrogation tactics to bad policing, torture, discrimination and prejudice, Rubin Carter suffered through it all.
It is absolutely crazy to think about what Rueben Carter had to endure for many years of his life. Starting off at a very young age he never did have a fighting chance for survival in the world he was growing up in. He was constantly surrounded by discrimination and prejudice. These concepts are particularly emphasized when Rueben, as a child, was picked up after defending himself in an abandoned spot by a random body of water. The children were merely playing when an old man came up and started talking to them like they were pets, calling them pretty and what not. You could clearly for see something bad happening until little Rueben threw a bottle at him and all the children ran for it; all except Rueben got away. It wasn’t until the man picked up Rueben and was threating to throw him over the edge of the waterfall that he stabbed the man to get away. Unfortunately, the man that Rueben had stabbed ended up being a prominent white man in the community and Rueben’s actions of stabbing him ultimately sealed his fate. Because of the prejudice displayed by the leading investigator on Rueben’s cased dating all the way back to when he was a kid, it led to Rueben being imprisoned for crimes he did not commit.
During Rueben’s interrogation when he was a child, police and investigators used the good cop bad cop method. This to me was bad policing simply because Rueben was only a child. They used a certainty of guilty when they did not even know the situation fully surrounding the actions of Rueben. They socially isolated him when his mother should have been present and were swearing at him as well. Of course putting a child in that type of situation would lead him not saying anything, he was probably very scared.
When the judge sentenced Rueben as a 10 year old boy he followed his sentencing guidelines. As a judge you take all evidence into consideration and then hand down a sentence to be carried out by the defendant. However in Rueben’s case the evidence had likely been stacked against him leading the judge to believe that Rueben in fact did carry out the actions of stabbing a white man because a robbery went wrong and therefore sentenced him to a state home for boys until he was 21. Due to the fact that Rueben was black on top of the fact that he “committed a heinous crime” sentencing disparities were prevalent within Rueben’s case as well. Sentencing differences arise from exemplifying individual characteristics from one person to the next due to a biased discretion from the judge.
One day while in the State home for Boys, Rueben escaped and joined the military. Psychologically Rueben possessed a “fighting mood” and was not going to be treated unfairly anymore and wanted to do something with his life. When released from the military Rueben went back to his hometown and met a woman but as luck would have it the same man who investigated him and stacked the evidence against him when he was a boy found him and put Rueben back in prison. Rueben served his time but while there he gained a new sense of purpose: boxing.
Developing from a child who was discriminated against to now a man who still was continually pushed down by the color of his skin, he was completely fueled by hate and determination to not let anyone hurt him again. For the first time in a long time things were finally starting to look up Rueben got married, had a baby and his career as a professional boxer was well underway. Everything was going good until one night he was framed for murder. Eyewitness testimony during his first trial placed Rueben at the scene of the crime at the time the police said the murders happened. Some of the eyewitness even expressed that they knew Rueben was the shooter. Due to coercion by police officers with the addition of a bribe, the eyewitness of this case were led, during a recording, to elicit that Rueben was in fact the shooter. Not out of coincidence did the same investigator that introduced evidence to the court when Rueben was 10 was now the same investigator who bribed eyewitnesses in Rueben’s case when he was an adult. According to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act it is illegal to lie about evidence as a means of conviction. While the interview with eyewitnesses were recorded during the identification process there was a portion of the interview that was not recorded; the part where the bribe took place. The interview that was recorded however also used leading questions and intimidation.
Ultimately Rueben served significant jail time as a result of lying, prejudice, bad eyewitness testimony, and discrimination. Nothing can reverse Rueben’s time spent in jail but the justice system will forever remember the case of Rueben Carter.
Terms: Eyewitness testimony, Discrimiination, Prejudice, Intimidation, Bad Policing, Leading Questions, Lying, Interviewing Children, coercion, fear, fighting mood, sentencing guidelines, disparities, racial profiling, interrogation, bias.

Prior to this assignment I had not heard of this movie, which in the past blog posts has been a bad thing. But I actually thought that this movie was really good, that is saying something for me since I do not like Denzel Washington. The movie The Hurricane was about a man named Ruben Carver, who was a boxer, who was wrongly convicted of murder. I thought that it was crazy that he was convicted off of another individual’s testimony placing him at the scene of the crime, especially since this individual was also being questioned for the murders. This just shows to me how unfair trials can be and that corruption does exist within policing and the courts, as much as we do not want to believe it as true. Since there was such a lack of forensic evidence pointing to him as being the individual who committed the crimes I am incredibly surprised that he was convicted. But when looking at when the movie was set ( I do believe it was in the sixties) there was a lot of racism towards African Americans at the time and that more than likely played a rather large role in why they went along with such little evidence against him. It reminded me a bit of the book I read for my report in this class “Picking Cotton”, in which there was little to no forensic evidence tying Ronald to the Rape of Jennifer Thompson, but since there was an eyewitness testimony he was sentenced to prison. I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and that there needs to be no question whether or not the individual committed the crime. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial, which I do not believe Ruben Carter had. There was clearly some sort of discrimination going on in the court based off of the color of his skin, which is incredibly unfair and upsetting. Thinking of psychological aspects one scene stands out to me, when arriving at the prison and being told to change his clothes Ruben refused. He did not want to dress like a prisoner because he was innocent, but since he did not do so his punishment was to spend 90 days in the hole. While in the hole, Ruben began to have hallucinations and hear voices, which continued throughout the movie. This is a clear-cut sign of psychological disturbances, which anyone would have after spending that much time in a place with no natural light and no social interactions. This movie displayed many aspects that we have learned throughout this semester, so saving it as the last blog post makes complete sense. This was also a great movie to watch after learning about the innocence project on Tuesday, the amount of people who have been wrongly convicted is absolutely terrifying to me because it is not something that you necessarily think about when you picture our court systems. Prior to this class I knew that there were individuals in prison that were wrongfully convicted but some of our chapters and blog assignments helped me realize that it is more of a problem than I thought. Thankfully Ruben Carter was later acquitted and released from prison.

Terms: Innocence project, psychological disturbances, acquitted, policing

It could be said that the Hurricane ends with one of the most perfect lines in all cinema “Hate got me in, but love got me out”. When looking at this film (it was the first time I had watched this film before) the first thing I noticed of course was the discrimination Carter had to face throughout his life. It started when he was young only a child of 11. After defending himself from an attacker attempting to shove him off a ledge, Carter was arrested and sent to a juvenile detention center till he was about nineteen I believe. As soon as he entered the police station he was degraded and treated as a lesser person. The police via race bias presumed Carter was actually robbing the man and not defending himself. Then after escaping he joined the army and really changed. Through the discipline he gained from the army Carter’s whole worldview changed. He wanted to be seen as different by others and wanted to beat their expectations. In class this year I read the Other Wes Moore and the author goes through a similar experience. This I would call his Identity achievement, or the moment when he has solidified his personality and what he believes in.
After returning to his home town that same cop arrests him and he’s back in jail for some time. He stews in rage against a world that treats him differently. There’s another scene from the Other Wes Moore that parallels this greatly. The author one night gets leave from his military academy in Virginia. As he’s walking through the town he is assaulted by passerby with a rock, he is angry and confused at this, but he doesn’t give up neither did Carter. Carter focused that rage into training for his boxing career. Once he was released he did just that. He got a career in boxing, got married and even has a child. Yet due to a stereotype and the actual perpetrators of a shooting saying he was there Carter was again arrested and in jail. The police would also implant a false-memory into a witness by using persuasion and leading questions to make them believe it was Carter who had committed the crime. If this trial hadn’t been effected by shoddy and corrupt police work and was unbiased the prosecution would have had nothing on Carter for this crime. The only real evidence that was had was a witness report that stated they saw a black man speed off in a white car after the shooting. That witness should have never even been called from how vague that account was! The witness didn’t have a clear look at the shooters face and the car so by not having any details they are wholly unreliable.
During the scenes where the student in Canada was trying to get Carter released/ a retrial they themselves faced death threats and violence that would normally be attributed with the prison life and snitches. The ones in power during Carter’s first trials believed they were untouchable because no one would look into this again. After the evidence with the phone calls, the unreliable witness and the lack of evidence on the scene and the fact it was an all white jury. Just shows how racist these trials were if you could even call the farce of trial real in the first place. The one thing that kept Carter going similar to Andy DuFrane in Shawshank was that he knew he was innocent. He continued to plead his case and even wrote that book which would lead to his freedom.
This movie I believe shows just how unjust our justice system was and still probably is. Due to racial bias and stereotyping there are probably scores of people locked up in jail right now for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The most amazing thing about this story is that DNA evidence wasn’t used to exonerate him. Just someone a country away giving Carter the benefit of the doubt; and an open ear to listen to his story. It gave me a new perspective on the innocence projects we read about last week as well. It’s truly amazing what the people working through those projects do for those who are wrongly confused. While many people may use it as a last ditch effort to escape prison, for those wrongly accused I think it’s just what is needed in our country.
Terms: Stereotyping, Racial Bias, Evidence Tampering, Eye Witness, False Imprisonment, Identity Achievement