There has been this show on Netflix by the name of 'Making a Murderer', which is about the trial of Stephen Avery for an alleged rape. This is right after his exoneration of an 18 year rape conviction by DNA evidence proving his innocence. The series has gained serious buzz, and paints the picture of a completely innocent Stephen Avery, leading to many of the shows watchers creating a petition to pardon him.
Analysis: Lots of controversy has followed this series in regards to it accurately depicting all of the events that went down. In fact as some people have said "...facts and pieces of evidence pointing in the direction of the defendants guilt have been omitted." The likelihood of Avery getting the pardon is still very slim, however if he ended up getting pardoned, it would be extremely resemblant to the corrupt bargain between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. Much like the corrupt bargain, everything seems to be 'alleged', and through dirty means a potential undeserving candidate finds success.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/opinions/cevallos-making-a-murderer-pardon-chances/index.html
This is why you couldn't base you opinions on something as unreliable as a TV show, especially in this situation which it's a court case. The person who write that script could have written the show exactly for this purpose and hoping for this outcome, that if they could make him an appealing character they could easily sway people to take his side in the real court. With a situation this important you should focus on the real facts, not a show on Netflix.
ReplyDelete-Shelby Linker, 8th period