Law and Order Observations

Aside from how one of the detectives was wearing a plaid tie that matched my high school's plaid, the first thing I noticed was the brutality toward the two living suspects in the prison van. I feel like any defense attorney with a brain could use this harm done to his or her client against the state's case, and although it may not persuade a jury of the defendant's innocence, it could cast enough doubt on the motives of the investigators to let the defendant walk. On a side note, I feel like detectives and cops on tv are always casually beating up suspects, which makes me wonder if it actually happens, and I hope it doesn't.
Another thing I noticed (and yet another common, re-occurring theme in cop dramas) was the conflict and tension and animosity between the feds and the local cops. They were completely unable to work with each other because of overlapping jurisdictions and whatnot. It seemed that once any cop had worked with the feds, he had a sour feeling toward them and wouldn't hesitate to make his opinions clear. The entire case was almost lost to the hard-headedness and of both the New York police department and the FBI, who refused to cooperate or share evidence or knowledge of undercover agents.
The final aspect of the episode that hit me as strange was the fact that the state won its case not by proving (beyond reasonable doubt) that the leader in the IRA killed the other prisoner, but by proving that he had lied about not being a violent man. It was the testimony of a woman whose children and husband had been murdered by the Irishman's bomb that handed the state its conviction. While I understand this to be normal procedure, as it demonstrates to the courtroom character flaws in a defendant, I am bothered that this led a ruling of guilty. While the Irishman was a horrible man, and had probably committed more murders than just the three (in Ireland, by the way), his committing those murders does not convict him of the murder of the prisoner. His lying to the jury and judge about not being a violent man makes him guilty of perjury, not murder. Do I believe he was guilty? Absolutely yes. Do I have problems with the way that the state made its cases? You bet.

3 Observations

The first thing that jumped out to me while watching “The Troubles” was the jurisdiction issue between the Federal Government and the New York State Government. Neither investigative body were able to get their way because each of their interests bumped up against each other throughout the episode. The problems arose because important federal prisoners were involved in a murder while in state custody. New York was concerned with bringing a murder to justice, while the Feds were concerned with protecting their national security interests. If the prisoners were not critical terrorist targets and/or informants, then the problematic cooperation may not have happened.

A second issue that jumped out to me was concerns about a fair trial and the rights of prisoners. In some cases, the terrorists were held indefinitely without charges or open access to legal council. America is supposed to be a nation of laws that values our Constitution and the 5^th Amendment, but the treatment of the terrorists by Federal officials makes a mockery of legal procedure. Backroom deals were made, rights were violated, and justice was hardly served all under the vague guise of national security.

The final aspect that I noticed about this episode is that of justice. Succinctly put, was justice served? Neither the Feds nor the state of New York achieved all their goals concerning this case; that much was evident in the despaired looks on all the official’s faces in the episode’s closing scene. Given the scenario created by the episode I don’t think any ideal outcome was possible. Federal and State authorities had to choose between political expediency versus moral justice, as well as deciding the relative importance between national security and an ethical legal process. None of these are easy questions, but they nonetheless demand answers on a daily basis.

Three Observations

While we were watching this episode of Law and Order, three things stuck out at me.  First, I noticed the blatant uncooperative nature of the different agencies; regardless of who was investigating what, they weren't willing to help each other out even by allowing the interrogation of possible witnesses.  Later in the show, during the court proceedings, I was taken aback by the defense's actions after the eyewitness took the stand.  Before asking any questions relevant to the case, the defense attorney questions the witness's right to be in the United States, as if that somehow made what happened less of a crime.  Lastly, I noticed significant foul play from the prosecuting side as well; everyone who had worked to bring in the suspect was willing to go above and beyond to get him off the streets, for better or worse.  The prosecuting attorney was willing to break the law to get a conviction, and payed for it.  Also, the police officer responsible for bringing the suspect in resorted to murder when the suspect escaped conviction.  Both of these people were willing to destroy their own honor and reputations to take down this one man.

3 Observations

The first observation I noticed was the way the police department treated the ethnic suspects. All three were constantly referred to in pejorative terms, openly. Today, I would like to hope that this behavior would not be considered acceptable, especially because it seemed to cloud the officers judgment of suspects. Immediately it was observed that the Irish suspect, who was a suspected terrorist, was not truly considered as a suspect because one of the detectives sympathized with his ethnicity.

Secondly, there was an observed lack of interagency corporation between the FBI and the police department, essentially almost to the point where a suspected terrorist would be able to walk free. Today, it seems like this would have created a media firestorm, but at the same time I feel like we have been hyper-sensitized to the threat of terrorism- at the time it seemed like most Americans struggled to relate to the IRA induced terror occurring in Britain. Today, we would never consider offering political amnesty to a terrorism suspect.

Lastly we would have absolutely no qualms about him being held for 5 years without a trial. This seemed like a huge issue for the government at the time, and it is amazing how quickly our views changed on due process for those considered enemy combatants. Now, an unknown amount of people face detention without hope of trial, or even more disturbingly, rendition to black sites where they are subject to interrogation techniques favored by governments without any concern for human rights.

Three Observations

One thing the episode brought to my attention is the different perspectives on justice from two groups or individuals on the same side of the law. The view of the FBI agent regarding whether pursuing the Bomber guy for a murder was worth publicity for the IRA is valid and rational. At the same time, the desire to pursue trial for the murder of even a drug and weapon peddler is also valid, due to the sanctity of the human life in America. This situation adds considerable complexity to my consideration of legal matters from an enforcement perspective.
Similarly, the different perspectives of the IRA presented from members and from the public/government shows a conflict between different perspectives. While I cannot understand how a conflict between two different sects of the same religious group could come to armed combat, I can understand why it would be worth it to others. Religious fanaticism has existed for the same amount of time as religion. I cannot understand the bombing of innocent individuals, or chalking up such an incident as a necessary accident, and as such I would offer that it is not only the job of moderate individuals to attempt to view things from the perspective of radicals, but for radicals to attempt to view things from more moderate perspectives as well. If this were possible, I doubt there would be many radicals in the world.
Finally, the level of racial tension displayed within the show was very prevalent to me. The show was made in a different era, but I cannot imagine that as recently as the Law and Order's creation, there was so much casual disparagement of individuals of different religions or cultures. I know it existed, but the casual nature with which the cops in the opening scene bantered back in forth about "Micks" and "WOPs" struck me as odd. I may just have limited experience in these kinds of situations or with individuals from these backgrounds, but this scene stuck with me.

3 Observations

    One thing I noticed from the episode we watched on Tuesday was how the one lawyer was presented as disreputable. The viewers were given the impression that he was taking bribes from outside sources in order to throw the case away. I would like to think that this is not an accurate portrayal of lawyers.
   Another thing that I noticed was the seemingly hostile relationship between the FBI and the NYPD police officers. There were several  harsh words exchanged and obvious distrust between the two departments. The argument between the two over who had jurisdiction over the case is another example of their relationship.
   One final thing in the episode that seemed odd to me was the amount of red tape involved in the proceedings of the investigation. This is kind of enhanced by the hostile relationship with the FBI, but the to-do list of things that were required before the inmates could be interviewed seemed very long and very involved. It would not surprise me if this high level of bureaucracy is actually present in real life. 

Law and Order Observations

1. At the end of the episode, the state brought in a witness to testify against O’Connell who had nothing to do with the current case.  I found it interesting that the lawyer brought this woman in.  While she was very instrumental in proving he was a bad person and had committed a crime before, she had no real pertinence to the current case.  I was surprised the lawyer was allowed to question her during the trial.

2. This was a tiny detail in the episode, but when I noticed it, I was shocked that it happened.  After finding the man who appeared at first to have hung himself, Logan went into the cell and spoke with (who I believe was) the coroner.  The coroner handed the noose made from sheets to Logan.  Logan held this with bare hands.  Maybe this move was just overlooked by the editors, but I found it surprising that Logan held a potential piece of evidence in his bare hands.  This was especially shocking because they had yet to declare whether or not the death was actually a suicide.

3. Every time the detectives read a suspect his Miranda Rights, I perked up.  I was so surprised to hear them said differently than I traditionally have in the past.  The detective asked after every right, “do you understand?”   I continually wondered why the detectives don’t seem to ask this question anymore, or maybe they do and it is just the media that does not include this question anymore.

3 Things I Noticed

1) I noticed at the beginning of the episode, it started as a power struggle between the local police department, the NYPD, and the FBI.  This struggle continued throughout the episode and I think it is still seen in episodes and even real life situations today.  When the FBI gets involved in investigations, it always seems to have negative connotations.  They want to hide or keep certain information from local police departments which does not help either side.  Is this just something they try and emphasize in the media to make it more dramatic or does this happen often in actual cases?
2) At the very beginning of the episode when the body was found in the van, one of the police officers started kicking the deceased after his body was literally dumped out of the van.  This was extremely shocking to me because you would not expect an officer of the law to behave in such a way.  He may have been upset about the prisoner, but he did not act professionally.  My question is why did the other cops not try to stop him?  This may be another instance in which the media put it's own spin on things to make the episode more dramatic.  However, I would not be surprised to find out that police officers still let their emotions get the best of them.
3) The police let their emotions intervene in there investigation throughout the entire episode.  There is even one seem when the detective and one of the subjects are having a friendly conversation and laughing.  This was unusual to see because you always hear and see on TV the cops laying into the suspects, getting all in their faces and putting pressure on them to tell them everything they know.  The detectives allowed personal feelings to get in the way of making objectives observations during the case.

Observations from Episode

The first thing that really jumped out at me was the one detective’s hesitancy to consider O’Connell as a suspect based on stories family and friend had told him.  I didn’t really expect this sort of bias to come up while investigating a criminal case, in my mind he should have been looking at the facts and details and not the man’s background that his own family and friends have provided.  The detective’s thinking could have set a criminal free.

A second thing would be the lack of cooperation between the FBI and local police forces.  If the two worked together, justice would have come much quicker upon the guilty.  Instead they slowed each other down, refusing to help, give information they had, or turn prisoners over to one another so that they could be prosecuted.  It seems like a slow system that could easily be made much more efficient.

The final thing I noticed was the very intricate international laws regarding extradition of criminals and the laws based on that.  It seemed as though the police were constantly treading very lightly with what they could and could not do with O’Connell to make sure that his being in America wouldn’t allow him freedom on its own merit.  If he had testified for the other murder he would have been allowed to be free in America and never face British justice and may been released before he could be revealed as the real killer.  Laws around extradition make bringing criminals to justice much harder, but bring into question how international justice should be used.  How far should one countries’ arm stretch to bring justice to someone who broke their laws?  It is my opinion that people should not be able to flee a stable countries justice system by slipping into another country, and that these people should be handed back to the country whose laws they have violated.  

3 Things I Noticed

1. The first thing I noticed about the episode we watched in class this week was the references to the IRA.  At first I was not sure at all what it was, but as the show went on I gathered that it was an Irish terrorist group.  The episode was made before middle eastern terrorist were all we heard about, which surprised me.  Nowadays, the media would most likely not portray an Irishman as a terrorist.

2.  The next thing I noticed was how determined the two law enforcement agencies were to undermine the others.  The police officers wanted to solve the murder that the FBI said didn't exist.  I would think that the agencies would both want to do what is in the best interest of their own agencies, but not to that extent.

3.  The last, and most shocking, thing I noticed, was how the police officers treated the body of the deceased and the criminals all together.  If a police officer went around kicking a body and threatening detainees, he or she would be accused of harassment and such and possibly lose his or her job.  The public opinion of what police officers can and can't do has changed a whole lot since that episode was filmed.

Observations of Episde

1. I noticed that there was a lot of arguing and limited communication between the two levels of government. They did not seem to want to work together to solve the case. Each one seemed to have a different goal and believed that the other one was preventing them from getting their job done.

2. I also noticed that many of the police officers brought personal ideas and emotions into the situations. Instead of focusing on facts and the law, many based their ideas on their views or feelings they had about a specific person.

3. A final thing I noticed from the episode is when one of the men who worked for a government agency (I don’t remember exactly what) said to one of the police officers, “Don’t you see the bigger picture?” and the police officer replied that he did not realize people could get away with a crime with no punishment in order to save a reputation. I found this interesting that this man was willing to forget the crime was committed in order to keep up a reputation and support the bigger picture.

Observations from Episode

1.       I first noticed how old the episode was, and was a bit confused the first time the IRA was mentioned.  It took me a while to remember that the IRA was the Irish Republican Army and to remember that they were an active terrorist organization as well as in the media a lot in the late eighties and early nineties.  This was a surprise and a reminder to me because I am only used to hearing about Middle Eastern Terrorist Organizations since 9/11.  I would say this demonstrates how the media effects my perception of the threats that our nation faces because I had to think and recall who the IRA were, while if you mention Osama Bin Laden, everyone knows what terrorists and events you are referring to.

2.       I also noticed how the agencies appeared to hate each other through not cooperating, or sharing information with each other, and even stonewalling the other’s investigation.  I believe the media, especially television dramas, to this day play a significantly huge role in exaggerating the disdain between agencies.  While I have family members who belong to different government agencies, I realize when all of them work together or/and with local officials political agendas are taken into account, but I believe they still have a common and ultimate goal of protecting American citizens.  I think they are expected to play against each other, especially from the American public since typically our exposure to government agencies is through television, and the agencies take advantage of this expectation, running with it to further their own respective political agendas.    

3.       The last thing I noticed was the reading of the Miranda Rights when individuals were being arrested.  I am familiar with hearing “You have a right to remain silent, everything you say can and will be used in a court of law…,” but I am not used to hearing “Do you understand?,” after each clause.  Perhaps this is because contemporary media has taken this phrase out of the process and therefore the only knowledge I have of the Miranda Rights has stemmed from the media and as a result is skewed.  A brief Google search revealed that this question asked at the end of each clause rather than just at the end is the decision of each department.  I wonder if the media had any influence in the organization of how this question is asked when Miranda Rights are being read, as it takes up a lot of time to ask “Do you understand?,” after each clause, especially on a television show.   

Episode 2 Opinions

1. At the beginning of the episode, all the lawyers seemed to be arguing over whose jurisdiction it was, instead of deciding what would be better for everyone's interests.  The lawyer whose client died actually kicked him (while lying there dead) because he was mad that he had worked so hard on trying to prove him innocent (all for nothing...in his mind it was all for nothing). That seemed unprofessional and morally incorrect.  He obviously cared more about the money than the actual justice/ problem that someone had just been murdered.
2. Secondly, in the court room it seemed as though O'Connell's lawyer was more interested in persuading the jury into believing something that was not necessarily true, but was in the best interest of his client.  He was not very interested in finding the truth, and because of this there were a large amount of objections in the court room.  He seemed to be telling more of a story, and was not very professional at all.
3. The evidence that ended up proving O'Connell guilty actually had nothing to do with the original case; this was surprising to me.  The witness showed how O'Connell was inherently a bad person, yes, but it did not have anything to do with the actual case so I was surprised that the judge allowed it to be used.  The judge seemed a little biased, on the side of the innocent of course, but if it had been the other way around I'm not so sure the conviction would have come around so quickly.

Observations of episode

1. I noticed the tension between the different branches of law enforcement...it was almost as if they were working against each other and not as a team, as you would expect.
2. I noticed the corruption within the judicial department.
3. I noticed how much bias each of the cops/detectives were...it was almost as if they had gotten too attached to their clients and thus were blinded to their guilt.

Constraining Laws

Many cities across the U.S. have implemented stricter smoking laws, many of which restrict smoking in all enclosed public places and enclosed places of employment.  The city of Chicago has taken this law one step further and restricts smoking within 15 feet of the entrance to any of these establishments.  As a non-smoker, I agree with this law although it constrains many people.  Walking around the city, you are surrounded by enclosed public places and if this law didn’t exist, many people would be smoking right outside of them.  In such a busy city, there are many pedestrians who can be affected by second-hand smoke by simply walking down the street and the law helps prevent this.  While this law constrains where people can smoke, it still allows them to smoke, as long as they find somewhere else to do so.  Ultimately, this law helps more people than it constrains.

One law in my hometown that I am no longer constrained by (but was when I first got my license) is that it is illegal for a minor to drive after 11 pm on the weekends.  I disagree with this law completely.  There were times in high school that I would be at a friend’s house and have to leave at 10:45 in order to make it home before curfew.  This was extremely frustrating because it was the weekend and my parents weren’t strict, and if the law hadn’t existed, I would have allowed me to return home much later than an 11 pm curfew.  Although I understand that the law wants to protect minors and ensure they get home safely, I think that curfew should be at the discretion of the parents and not in the law's hands.