“When They See Us” highlights the challenges experienced by individuals who have left the jail institution and captures all the memorable events that anyone in the surrounding vicinities of New York City (NYC) at the time would recall. The laws that apply to formerly incarcerated people seem to be set up to ensure the ultimate failure since they are very convoluted and ludicrous. Furthermore, viewers get to know how helpless and shattered the unjust prisoners can be under police duress. Despite its shortcomings in portraying the accused as wholly innocent, the series rarely misses the grip of its central premise, which holds that black and brown individuals are always assumed guilty.
The audience viewed the teenagers indelibly remembered as “The Central Park Five” through the lens of this Netflix miniseries. At the same time, they appeared on prosecution in 1989 for a horrific atrocity they did not perpetrate. Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Jr., Korey Wise, and Kevin Richardson were found guilty in New York City by the media and the investigators, who were equipped with perjured testimony that lacked even dependable facts about the case of the crime (Parks, 2021). Undoubtedly one of the very upsetting scenes in the first episode has a father pleading with his son to admit the truth and testify to an offense he did not do out of pure terror that the police will shoot him if he does not. The mortuary is preferable to imprisonment. They were sentenced to years in jail and the consequences of a felony conviction. The real criminal strolled through Central Park unharmed, whereas the New York Police Department (NYPD) intimidated and tormented these young people.
Media organizations had a hand in unjust convictions and, more broadly, in years of harsh criminal law practices. The Central Park Five story had an immediate, noticeable press influence. Before the teenagers were placed on trial, the press had essentially portrayed them as monsters and practically pronounced them guilty of the crime. It was clear from the way publications and broadcasters covered the story and talked about the adolescents that they intended to convince readers that these five young men were responsible. They used words such as “savages” and “wolf pack” to describe these youthful men to society which obstructed the well-being of the accused (Finn, 2019). The press did this to publicize them in a bad light before they could effectively defend themselves.
The press demonized the young men using words such as the ones mentioned above. Those phrases and words enticed the audience, and in some cases, the audience may have forgotten that the publications in question were addressing real individuals rather than a “wolf pack” (Parks, 2021). The vast majority of the articles about this case inevitably portrayed the youngsters negatively since they all formed an abysmal mental representation of them. Even if the piece had nothing wrong to say about the teenagers, audiences would still have the wrong opinion of them because of how the reporters chose to frame their subject.
All five teenagers recanted their confessions made to the authorities as soon as they were given legal counsel, claiming they had been coerced and pressured into making false confessions. This clearly shows that the investigators obstructed the well-being of the accused in the depicted events. DNA testing could not link any of the males to Trisha’s rape. Sadly, this made little impact when the Central Park Five got to court. The accused lived out their sentence terms while still having the extensively reported charges associated with their identities. However, Matias Reyes, a notorious murderer and sequential rapist, admitted in 2002 that he was the only assailant in the incident on the Central Park victim (Parks, 2021). He was willing to offer information that was only known to the criminal, and DNA testing revealed that he was the perpetrator. However, Matias could not be prosecuted at that moment since the crime’s rule of constraints had already expired. After disclosing this new material, Robert M. Morgenthau, the district attorney at the time, urged that all five be cleared of all charges, rendering their sentences completely invalid (Finn, 2019). On December 19, 2002, they received their justification. This was the first step in strength the government took toward promoting the well-being of the wrongfully convicted men.
The Central Park Five did not receive their youth ness back once these accusations were dropped against them. Kevin, Raymond, and Antron brought a lawsuit for wrongful arrest, racial prejudice, and mental anguish against New York City in 2003 (Henderson, 2019). Through sheer community peaceful demonstrations, the victims rallied throughout New York City, trying to get the attention of the public system and calling them out for their unjust persecution. In the end, the lawsuit was resolved for $41 million, with Korey obtaining $12.2 million while the remaining four men got $7.1 million (Henderson, 2019). It involved more than ten years of litigation with the city’s attorneys and installing a fresh New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio. There was another step of strength by the government and community to ensure the positive well-being of the wrongfully accused persons.
There is merely a judicial structure in place for justice in the United States. The nation created that system to adhere to the law as written rather than the principle of justice. Sadly, the Central Park Five’s tale was not particularly remarkable. It follows a long practice of unfair detentions and erroneous trials of black and Latino teenage men in America, a trend that DuVernay’s miniseries cannot wholly resolve as racial oppression was evident in depicting the events (Henderson, 2019). It is essential to realize that this tendency aims to direct renewed attention in the matter toward the required systemic adjustments.
The Central Park Five were subjected to dictatorial harassment by different state officials. It began with their apprehension and interrogation in 1989 and continued throughout their hearings, imprisonment, and eventually vindication in 2002 (Parks, 2021). The young men were all initially assumed to be criminals in the view of the law, and the mechanics of race and class characterized the matter. Social stratification was evident in how the system functioned towards the depicted events, whereby four of the five were placed in the juvenile system after being subjected to coerced confessions. Because 16 and 17-year-olds in New York were convicted as grownups until 2018, Korey, who had been 16 at the moment of his arrest, ended up in the adult system (Finn, 2019). These five youngsters negotiated this difficult terrain for more than ten years while their relatives struggled because of their exile.
The film gives a fresh perspective on this well-known story and seeks to effect reform. A decade-long campaign by campaigners to personalize the Central Park Five above their numerical designation is continued by DuVernay’s miniseries (Parks, 2021). Perhaps most significantly, it has additionally served as an inspiration for the subsequent era of social justice campaigners who are dedicated to challenging erroneous verdicts and reviving public discourse on felonious wrongs in the American legal framework in the hopes of bringing forth systemic reform.
References
Finn, H. (2019). The central park five: The true story behind Netflix’s miniseries, ‘when they see us. Good Housekeeping. Web.
Henderson, O. (2019, May 30) When they see us. Rogererbert.com. Web.
Parks, G. S. (2021). ‘When they see us: The great white awakening to black humanity. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.