From Riches To Rags

Image Source

"Living On A Dollar" really brought to my attention a lot of hard choices people living in poverty make on a daily basis. These choices can impact them for the rest of their lives.
Chris and Zach studied and were interested in how people in Pena Blanca survived on a dollar per day per person. So they, along with their film friends, Ryan and Sean, go from living in nice homes in New York to living in a shack in Guatemala. These guys spend fifty-two days in living conditions that are not what they are used to. Since the natives never really know what they will make on a daily basis, the boys randomly draw out numbers from a hat to stimulate the circumstances these people are in.
The scene that really got to me, was when Chris was talking about how Ryan and Sean do not understand. That Ryan and Sean say they can live like this for maybe another two years and it outrages Chris. Chris and Zach both speak Spanish and the other two guys do not. So Chris and Zach spend a lot of times listening to the hardships that these folks go through and the choices they make. Chino, a young boy of twelve, knows he is going to be a farmer, yet he aspires to be a famous soccer player. Rosa, another native, had to give up her dream of being a nurse because when she was in sixth grade, her parents could no longer afford her education. While Ryan and Sean are accepting of the living conditions, they are unaware of all the hardships that accompany this type of life.
The most surprising moment of the short film was when Chris became ill. He was in really bad shape, puking and in the bathroom a lot. His illness got to be so bad that he had to go to a clinic. While at the clinic, he was told he had a worm inside his stomach and the medicine would cost him twenty-five dollars. The issue then became that they did not have enough money for the medicine. Chris decided he would use the medication that they brought from New York and hoped that it would work. I was in awe that he would choose that option. Obviously Chris could have easily bought the medication but he wanted to experience the hardships and continue the journey.
This film arouse some questions. Did the guys pay off their loan for the small land they purchased? Did Chino end up going to school? Has Rosa completed her education and is a nurse? Why isn't there consistent labor available? How does the pool of twelve dollars a month work that Anthony set up?
There are a lot of issues that this film brought to my attention. For starters, the poverty cannot be solved by throwing money at it. Secondly, there needs to be more funding for programs like Grameen that loan out money to people living in poverty. Thirdly, there has to be a way to prevent so much damage done by hurricanes. There has to be some sort of back up plan to ensure that all belongings are not lost. Fourthly, maybe there should be some sort of public education that does not make families pay for their children to go to school. Lastly, we cannot forget about these people because they are fighting every day for their lives. It is hard for them to move up and more than likely, their future generations will go through the same cycle, unless something is done to prevent it.

The Sweet Sound Of Bias

Image Source

I have played the violin since I was in fourth grade so music interests me a lot. In addition, in sixth grade my English/Writing teacher introduced this idea of analyzing everything and this idea followed me through the rest of my school career.

When I hear music in a movie, it is key to determining whether I enjoy the movie or not. I will always have something to say about the music pieces accompanying the film. Trust me, I have seen some badly matched films. 

Having this sort of background, I could tell that the documentary on "How To Make A Murderer" used the music accompaniment to their advantage. Music has this unconscious impact on us all. The documentary's music made the audience empathize with Steven Avery. When he was describing the cat incident in a "I regret what I did" tone, the instruments were teasing your ears to feel for this guy. 

Which brings up another idea-was the documentary bias? I personally would say yes. It came from Steven Avery's perspective. We do not know all the facts and nothing was really in there to show what the police department was thinking. It is really hard to see where the scale of justice would land in this case because we only have some of the details. The details presented in the documentary were very persuasive and but to determine if the police department was a hundred percent wrong is impossible. We were not in their shoes. Maybe at the time, they thought this was right. 

So in honesty, I feel like I might have been a bit too rash in the last post. I was blindly seeing all the wrong that the documentary pointed out without stopping to think that their side of the story was not being presented from their perspective. 

So I urge you, no matter how tempting the orchestra is and how convincing one side is, stop and take a step back to look at all the information from different sources. Not just one.

On a side note, there is a petition floating around in the United States that you can find out more about it here. I do not know who is signing it but it seems like the documentary has stirred a bit of social unrest. People are outraged but my question is did they look into it further than the documentary or is that their only source?

Framing Steven Avery

Image Source

Making a Murderer follows Steven Avery who is wrongly charged with raping Penny Bernsteen. As I watched the first episode there was a lot that popped out at me. The most surprising is that there was the Morris Family. The Morris family, specifically Sandra, had it out for Steven. Sandra would spread rumors of Steve masturbating outside and having sex with his wife, Lori outside for the whole world to see. Steven was not the brightest fellow. Steven thought he could make Sandra stop spreading these lies by flagging her car down and walking up to her with empty gun. Although, at the time Steven thought this would be the right way to go about it, it was not. Sandra's husband was Sheriff in their town and the incident was blown out of proportion.
The Morris family really wanted to ruin Steven's life. I think there must have been more to the story than presented. There had to be a reason that Sandra would turn against her own cousin. I understand that the Avery family was frowned upon but it still does not make any sense as to why someone would hate another person so much.
Yet this hatred for Steven was at the core of the problem. The hatred led to all the false accusations. Sandra Morris was not a reliable source. She was spreading rumors and took the situation to the extreme. While the Police Department run by her husband ran with it. By the time the Police Department was done, they made it seem like a felony. This is an issue because people with power are using it for their own personal agenda.
When Judy, the deputy and friend of Sandra, went to interview Penny, the rape victim, she went with the idea that it was Steven Avery. And the rest is history. Judy was suggestive to Penny, as was the rest of the Police Department. They wanted to pin it on Steven. The sketch artist is said to have drawn the perpetrator from Steven's old mugshot. When they brought Steven in, they quarantined him off and did not give him a phone call or attorney. This is all illegal. The Police Department is not allowed to be suggestive and they are not allowed treat suspects in such a manner. 
The part that struct me as most memorable was the evidence. The evidenced used to pin the crime on Steven Avery was nonexistent. There were twenty-two witnesses supporting Steven Avery's alibi and they were all dismissed because they were "fabricating" it. Twenty-two people all had the same story and it was thrown to the side. There were officers from another district saying they had a suspect, Gregory Allen, who was most likely the perpetrator and the Sheriff ignored them. People went to the District Attorney and he too sent them away.
Steven in the past had committed crimes, but he had always owned up to them. Steven always paid the fines and time. For the rape, Steven did not change. He continued to be the honest man and claimed to be not guilty, even though that meant he would have to stay till his MR (Mandatory Release Date) with shot at parole. Steven was in jail for eighteen years, serving time for a crime he did not commit. Steven saw people who had actually murdered released before him. Steven appealed to court saying that the DNA had a third allele that was not identified to him or Penny. Unfortunately the court said that was not sufficient enough. When DNA technology had advanced enough to be able to pin who did it, it was found that Steven's DNA was not on the crime scene but rather Gregory Allen's was. This time Steven was released. The evidence surrounding this case was the most interesting because to get anywhere, there has to be convincing evidence and I feel like jobs were not done right. Evidence was spun to make it seem like it had been Steven and anything saying otherwise was ignored. As someone who has taken a handful of Criminal Justice courses in college, I do not understand how no one stood up in the police department and said wait-this is unethical and we are letting the true perpetrator get away. It is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty, but in Steven's case it was guilty until proven innocent.
Steven's situation had brought some heat for the Police Department. The district was investigated by the new district attorney and was found not guilty of doing anything wrong. So Steven did what anyone in his situation who was wrong could do. He filed a civil law suit against the Police Department of thirty-six million dollars. He did not want the money, rather the attention so that people would see how the police had wronged him.  
This problem is rare in my opinion now that technology is so advanced. However, since the technology is new we must revisit cases similar to this one. Through talking about it on social media, friends, and family we are able to bring to light the wrong doing of the Police who are more concerned with their own agendas. Not all situations are the same as this one. So we must keep in mind that not all officers are out to get us. Through raising our voice and opinions we will bring the situations to light. The innocent should not serve for the guilty.