OT: Netflix "Making a Murderer"

Submitted by 608Monroe on
Mods: Please feel free to delete if you feel this content is created a little too close to game time.

Had a chance to binge "Making a Murderer" this week, and can't stop thinking about the outcome of this incredible true-life documentary. I heard about the Steven Avery case when I was still living in Chicago, but had no idea of the controversy -- and outright corruption in the Wisconsin Department of Justice and the Manitowoc County Sherriff's department. Just an absolutely incredible, gut-wrenching story. If you haven't seen it yet, you're missing a difficult yet thought provoking 10-part series.

I'm wondering if any MGoLawyers who have seen the series are able to comment on the proceedings, and whether this could be a thread for discussion.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80000770

MGoBoard
Football

Ihatebux

December 28th, 2015 at 8:15 PM ^

I think this is unfortunately indicative of our entire legal system.  If you don't have money, you are discarded.  I truly feel the worst about the poor retarded nephew that got railroaded by corrupt state appointed councel.

Joined: 09/11/2008

MGoPoints: 9396

Clarence Beeks

December 28th, 2015 at 9:12 PM ^

In my opinion (as a lawyer), it's more indicative of the value that society as a whole places on the concept of justice. It's easy to blame the system, but it takes a more critical (and intellectually honest) evaluation to assess that the system is reflective of the society that gives it sanction. If society truly wanted to protect the rights of the accused (as opposed to just assigning blame to someone), in all instances, they'd demand the budget to support it. Instead, they don't, so the current state of the system is what we get.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22833

yzerman19

December 29th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^

steven had the settlement funds to fight and fought back with two lawyers and experts to counter all the state's experts.  poor people can't do that.  but yes the nephew is a good example of how bad it is if you ar poor and can't fight back - they had already convicted someone else and he still couldn't win.

Joined: 02/03/2012

MGoPoints: 1899

yzerman19

December 29th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^

steven had the settlement funds to fight and fought back with two lawyers and experts to counter all the state's experts.  poor people can't do that.  but yes the nephew is a good example of how bad it is if you ar poor and can't fight back - they had already convicted someone else and he still couldn't win.

Joined: 02/03/2012

MGoPoints: 1899

SalvatoreQuattro

December 28th, 2015 at 9:01 PM ^

But as the book details the Nazis taxed the wealthy at much higher rates. The German citizen paid much less to support the German war effort than either the British or American. The average German citizen was keeping more of their own money during the war than they were before.

The Nazis were a lower middle class party that only much later received corporate support. Their economy policies were decidely leftist. Planned economy, welfare state, a tax policy that benefitted the lower classes...all of this is fact. Hitler and Goebbels both were stridently anti-capitalist but were pragmatic enough to realize that in the short term at least, it was to their benefit to use corporations to build the army they needed to achieve lebensraum.

The book was written in 2005 by a German. It has nothing to do with affordable health care.

The Nazis are so frightening because they were willing to do whatever they needed to do to achieve their ends. There actually was socialism in National Socialism.

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 79289

The Mad Hatter

December 28th, 2015 at 9:10 PM ^

Was incidental. The regime was authoritarian first and foremost, and used any and all means at their disposal to stay in power. Huge government contracts for the industrialists, social benefits for the lower classes, and political power for those willing to use violence in support of the regime. Nevermind that some of the first people sent to concentration camps were German communists.

Joined: 02/17/2015

MGoPoints: 112109

LS And Play

December 28th, 2015 at 10:22 PM ^

The communists were enemies of Fascism because they were similar in many ways and appealed to the same people, not because they were so different. Taking out their competitors first made sense for the Nazis. 

The huge government contracts for industrialists that you mentioned and benefits for the lower classes confirms Salvatore Quattro's point that the Nazis would do almost anything to achieve their ends. 

Joined: 08/25/2012

MGoPoints: 8457

MichiganTeacher

December 29th, 2015 at 8:37 AM ^

Taking a person's property against her will is inherently evil. Why is it ok if a government does it? Just because the other 99,999 people in the city voted for it to be ok?

/closes thread, this shouldn't even be on this blog

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

LS And Play

December 28th, 2015 at 11:02 PM ^

I think it depends on which conception of socialism we're talking about. It's one of those words, like Fascism, which has lost meaning because people throw it around to describe whatever it is they don't like. But I would say, for example, Stalinist authoritarian communism is evil. Now of course some would say that wasn't socialism, but that's a discussion for another time/forum. 

Joined: 08/25/2012

MGoPoints: 8457

ijohnb

December 29th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^

is hard to recognize the U.S. as anything but socialist in actuality. The federal government and the "top 1%" are so intrinsically related through private ownership by government officials and special interest as to be indistinguishable. However, nobody will say it because the word "socialist" is taboo. This country is essentially socialist with very limited thought going into how the government spends its money. So, effectively it is "bad" socialism. (Exhibit A is hybrid private/socialized medicine that benefits nobody from the poor to the upper middle class). So then the question becomes, do it "right" or essentially eliminate 100 years of economic reform that got us here. In any event, the first step is to realize and recognize where we currently are in order to decide where we want to go.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Erik_in_Dayton

December 28th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^

The Nazis had profound philosophical differences with Communists regarding human nature and what an ideal world would look like. The Nazis - or at least Hitler - considered Communism to be the product of a botched (and Jewish) view of humans as essentially equal. He rejected this vehemently, of course, and thought it imposed weakness on a society. Communists theoretically wanted the eventual withering of the state as peace and equality made it unnecessary. Hitler wanted states to disappear so that there was a permanent war among the races.

Joined: 12/03/2008

MGoPoints: 59161

MichiganTeacher

December 29th, 2015 at 8:35 AM ^

Are you saying that socialism is not authoritarian? Or that the Nazis, aka the National Socialist German Workers Party, were not socialist? I think the only way that you could believe that is if you were almost completely unaware of, or misinformed about, the relevant history.

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

Heptarch

December 29th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^

The Nazis were Fascist, not Socialist.  They hated Communism just as much as they did Capitalism.  Self-declared Socialism is just as suspect as self-declared Democracies (see: Democratic People's Republic of Korea).  Judge a regime by its actions, not by its name.

Joined: 12/29/2014

MGoPoints: 7061