Analysis Of True Justice: Bryan Stevenson's Fight For Equality

The documentary, True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for Equality is a tear-jerking exposé of the deep-seated racial bigotry that persists in the duplicitous “land of the free.” Specifically, as a public interest lawyer working on behalf of convicted minorities, the documentary’s motif accentuates Stevenson’s political hardships towards crusading for a more equitable criminal justice system. Consequently, as an ambitious and intricate undertaking, the film can be seen to obtain a multitude of thematic purposes. This is evident by the film’s predominantly political essence through its affirmation of the enduring legislative malice of the legalization of discrimination against the African American community. Yet, the film coincidently speaks

As expressed in our textbook, Restorative Justice Today, one of the most rudimentary aspects of a restorative application is to, “bring harmed people together with those who cause the harm to discuss how they were affected, to take accountability… and to address ways the harm might be repaired” (Wormer & Walker, 2013). Hence, the documentary’s deposition is its inability to identify approaches towards bringing several societal members together such as those perceived to cause the harm (prosecutors, judges, and police officers) with those harmed (the wrongfully convicted, their families, and members of the community). Thus, while institutional errors of this magnitude are understandably difficult to address and are equally difficult to contrive ways to convene, a severe weakness of this film is its inability to obtain perspectives outside of its own such as that of the offending parties. Although understandable as a work seeking to recount the suppressed stories of this marginalized community, through a restorative lens, its debility is its lack of attempts to conduct restorative practices such as attempting to contact offending individuals willing to right these wrongs. Hence, while I must recognize the

This is so as Stevenson’s clients such as Hinton, Dill, and McMillian are only a few of countless accounts that attest to our system’s wrongful convictions and deaths of African Americans. Hence, these stories not only reflect our system’s profound prejudice, but also speak of our inadequacies as immoral institutions through our unwillingness to search for the truth and rather use the marginalized as scapegoats. The most compelling example of this is found in Hinton’s case through decades of denial over his defense’s attempts to reexamine the ballistics that would ultimately prove his innocence. The most dispiriting aspect is Hinton’s own deduction that “although it would only take one hour…My life was not worth one hour” (Kunhardt, 2019). Thus, it is these stories that produce a residual distress amongst viewers who are left to not only question the virtue of these institutions but inevitably question if this can happen to these people, what is stopping it from happening to them. Not to mention, I believe one of the strongest inclinations of our collective view can be summarized by Stevenson who affirms, “how we punish, how we treat … the marginalize... says something about us” (Kunhardt, 2019). It is my belief that the film in its entirety is in fact, saying “something about us,” about our system, and it is my relief to say that