A Historian at the Cinema: West of Memphis

We learn from our history, but we generally suffer from a forgetful memory. The case of the West Memphis Three is a painful lesson in injustice and mass hysteria. The case began with the horrific murder of three young boys in West Memphis. The crime rightfully shocked the community and calls to bring the culprits to justice were immediate. It is important to state that this was a tragic and horrific crime. The victims and their families deserve justice. However, in the process of solving this crime, social fears of outsiders and alleged deviants overruled proper police work and legal proceedings. West of Memphis, a film by Amy Berg, documents the tragedy of both crimes, the homicide and the legal injustice committed upon the West Memphis Three.

Three young men, Damien Echolls, Jason Bradley, and Jessie Misskelley, known for their love of heavy metal, anti-social behavior, and lack of assimilation with the conservative town, where quickly pointed to by the community as the perpetrators. Prosecutors and police conducted a what can now be called biased and flimsy investigation that sought more to appease the towns prejudice than actual justice. The result of the investigation and trial was the conviction of the three boys, now known as the West Memphis Three. The tragedy of the murders were only compounded by the tragedy of unjust conviction.

Amy Berg's film follows the investigation and carefully analyzes the mistakes and missteps made by police and prosecutors. Suspects that were quickly dismissed without due dilligance and the eventual convicted teens who were treated in a manner that borders on criminal manipulation. However, Amy Berg is careful in her analysis. She does not fall into the trap of placing generalized blame on the community, recognizing that the murders were indeed horrific and it is hard to blame parents for passionately searching for their son's killers. The parents are treated with respect and humanity. Her harshest criticism are reserved for the investigators and prosecutors who were more interested in expediency than truth.

However, the heart of the film is the calls for justice after the trial. Amy Berg focuses on the arduous and complex process of asking for repeals and clemency by the West Memphis Three. By this point, the teens were no longer alone in their crusade for justice, celebrities, activists, and regular people had rallied around the West Memphis Three. Concerts, protests, rallies and fund raisers were organized to show solidarity with the teens and bring their cause national attention. Despite the case garnering national media attention, time after time their appeals were denied and rejected. No amount of public support or evidence of police incompetence seemed to sway the court's or the Governor's mind. The cause seemed lost until 2011. Negotiations between the no longer teens and now men's attorney and prosecutors resulted in an Alford Plea Bargain. In non legal speak, this meant they would enter a plea deal that allowed them to assert their innocence but acknowledged that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict. They were released with suspended sentences.

Is this justice? The film takes a strong position in declaring no.The amount of back and forth, rejection after rejection that Echolls, Bradley, and Misskelley were subjected to can not be called justice in my opinion. From the first day of the investigation they were deemed guilty and never given any defense. This film depicts the scary reality of the U.S justice system gone array, and demonstrates that it is often done without much push back. Berg asks the audience to examine how we as a society react to crimes. There is a sense of balance that needs to preserved. Justice to the victim and to the accused. However, it is often harder to understand justice for the accused than for the victims.

A Historian Reads: Sin No More

In a class about vice crime, we were assigned to read our own professor's book. At first this came across as somewhat narcissistic and self serving, until I read it and realized that it was a great book. Sin No More: From Abortion to Stem Cells, Understanding Crime, Law, and Morality in America by Drs. John Dombrink (my wonderful professor) and Daniel Hillyard explores the space where morality and the law intersect. In criminology, there is a distinction made between crimes with victims (murder, assault, burglary etc) and those that are victim-less, otherwise known as vice crimes. Crimes with victims are generally not dispute about their status as a crime. It is hard to argue that murder is something we should allow as a society. Vice crimes, however, are less black and white. They bring up questions about morality, the role of government to enforce morality, and the purpose of the law.

As seen in the subtitle, this book covers topics as diverse as abortion, stem cells, marriage equality, gambling, and others. Both authors take a historical perspective to the topics and divide each chapter by type of vice crime. They then explore the historical development of the vice crime including how they came to be (or in some cases, reappeared), their origins with specific ethnic groups or social classes, the legislation written in response and modern debates surrounding their legality or illegality. In doing so, the authors bring out the nuances and unique debates that each topic creates rather than generalizing patterns of legalization and criminalization.

From Stonewall to the Facebook trend.
Dombrink and Hillyard note that on a whole,
trends are in favor of decriminalization. 

However, there is a greater overarching lesson to be learned through their historical and sociological analysis. Regardless of what vice crime you focus on, there is a national trend towards becoming more tolerant of these behaviors and peeling back the legislation that wastes money towards prosecuting victim-less crimes. Despite, social conservative cries about the decaying morality of the United States, it would appear that we are just becoming more tolerant of these former "immoral" behaviors in a healthy fashion. Just as legalizing heroin in Portugal did not cause the entire tiny nation to become heroin users, and legalizing gay marriage in most of Europe did not result in every getting gay married, so shall the United States pass into a state that worries less about their neighbor's behavior inside their home and focuses on actual physical crimes in which victims are due their justice.

Because I had Dr. Dombrink as a professor, I got the opportunity to talk with him a lengths about his approach to law, crime, and society. Something unique about his approach is that he is very aware of the left right paradigm that exists within a lot of research and views this as a biased way to treat the American public. He acknowledges the variety and hybrid political views that Americans have and uses this to hone his analysis. Rather than see increased tolerance as a rise in liberal thought, he instead sees it as a rise in individualist and libertarian ideas that he views as a common feature of millennials, regardless of the political affiliation. This new (at the time of publication in 2007) approach lends itself to a less political analysis and a more human one. Dombrink and Hillyard see these trends as reflective of humanity rather than of any political or economic development. At the end, the authors are positive and hopeful for the American political scene and trust that as people become less judgmental and less interested in controlling the behavior of others so shall the system slide in their favor.