Capturing the Friedmans.

Capturing the Friedmans.

In the documentary film, ‘capturing the Friedmans,’ different sections of the criminal justice system worked together to lead to the prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of Arnold and Jesse Friedman. Several concepts of the law, from plea bargaining to the active role of police and the defense counsel, are evident in the proceedings of their cases. The collaboration of the different arms of the criminal justice system in the prosecution of the Friedmans functioned well but had points of failure in making considerations that affected the execution of justice for both Arnold and Jesse.

The tasks of the police, as often described by their charters, are to preserve peace, to protect people and property, to detect and arrest offenders, and to prevent crime in general. By the wielding of a gun, the presentation of badges, and day to day dramatizations of police power, they assert their role in society (Bouza, 2013). The police know a lot about criminal law, and their arrests, unless otherwise motivated, are defended by the law. They arrest and charge people with criminal offenses. Following the arrests and holding of perpetrators, investigations conduction by police begins to prove their guilt. The arrest of Arnold and Jesse Friedman was a result of a house search that produced child pornography magazines that substantiated the charges of child sexual abuse and sodomy. The police also conducted witness interviews and recorded statements from children who claimed to have been abused by Arnold and Jesse. The success of the criminal justice system in the police’s ability to function properly and fulfill their role in the system is evident. The achievement of the investigation and the ensuing build of the case, including witness statements, demonstrates a well-functioning criminal justice system.

The burden of proof is a legal concept that required all parties involved to prove a claim is valid or invalid based on facts and evidence. There are three kinds of burdens of proof, the burden of production, the burden of persuasion, and the tactical burden of proof (Prakken and Sartor, 2016). The burden of proof is often typically required of one party in any claim. The law provides for a conviction based on proof of guilt or the non-existence of exceptions preventing such guilt. The prosecution has the burden of production in the legal facts and the burden of persuasion in proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. In Arnold and Jesse’s cases, the prosecution presented evidence of magazines and witness statements that pointed to the guilt of both defendants. The prosecutors spoke of a collection of child pornography scattered in the home of Arnold Freidman. Photos taken during the search of the house did not match the claims made by investigators. Other children who took computer classes in Arnold’s house denied the claims of child abuse. The prosecution’s haste in providing implausible evidence points to a crippled criminal justice system. Inconsistencies, in the evidence provided by the prosecution, discredit the work and efficiency of the criminal justice system.

The role of a defense counsel in court cases is proving that the defendant is not guilty of the charges. They ensure the defendant gets a fair consideration by the law in plea negotiation, arguments for leniency, and conditions of parole. In criminal cases, however, the role of defense counsel is limited (Lynch, 2014). They make formal arguments to prosecutors about the nature of the case and disprove a case that is built only to the benefit of the prosecution. Arnold and Jesse initially pleaded not guilty by the advice of their counsel and later took guilty pleas offered by the prosecution. Some witnesses, however, refuted claims that Arnold and Jesse had abused their children. The failure of the defense to persuade and prove the innocence of the defendants may be evidence of two things, the failure of the criminal justice system or the presence of a certain prosecution case that proves beyond doubt the guilt of the defendants.

Plea bargaining is a legal concept involving an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant to plead guilty or no contest to the charges presented in exchange for either a reduced sentence or exclusion of some charges. Plea bargaining is often driven not by law but by the power of the prosecution (Crespo, 2013). The prosecution’s ability to exert their level of power on the defendants, allows them to control the defendant and their counsel to accept a plea of guilt. In the cases of Arnold and Jesse Friedman, the prosecution offered them a guilty plea deal in exchange for lesser sentencing. In the vagueness of the concept of plea bargaining and the improper placement of power, the criminal justice system fails to give defendants a chance to prove their cases to a jury or a judge. A hurried plea deal, often surrounded by coercion and unjust interrogation, means a prosecution case is not challenged in court and resulting in the possible innocent conviction of Jesse.

In any prosecution, the defendant remains innocent until proved guilty. Presumption of innocence is a paradoxical yet fundamental concept that protects accused persons from wrong prosecutions (Jong and Lent, 2016). The prosecution determines all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumption of innocence rests on the jury and judge. They are required to analyze presented evidence to pass a judgment of guilty or innocent. Judge Abbey Boklan, the presiding judge on Arnold and Jesse’s case, is pictured in the movie, saying, “There was never a doubt in my mind of Jesse’s guilt” (qtd. From the movie ‘Capturing the Friedmans’). The judge makes this deliberation before analysis and consideration of the evidence. Ignorance of this concept proves the failure of the system in executing justice for the defendants and the apparent victims of the defendant’s offenses.

The conviction of Arnold and Jesse Friedman is a classic he said she said story. In the documentary film, critics fault the prosecution case and the conduction of their investigation. Witnesses claimed coercion, and most evidence submitted was inconclusive or simply non-existent. The prosecution is at fault in their conduction of the plea bargaining for Jesse. The film extrapolates the failure of some components of the criminal justice system, which resulted in a complicated conviction of the defendants. Failure of one part of a system only means a complete letdown of the whole system.

References

Bouza, A. V. (2013). The police mystique: An insider’s look at cops, crime, and the criminal justice system. Springer.

Crespo, A. M. (2018). The Hidden Law of Plea Bargaining. Columbia Law Review, 118(5), 1303-1424.

De Jong, F., & Van Lent, L. (2016). The presumption of innocence as a counterfactual principle. Utrecht L. Rev., 12, 32.

Lynch, G. E. (2014). Our administrative system of criminal justice. Fordham L. Rev., 83, 1673.

Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2016). A logical analysis of burdens of proof in Legal evidence and proof (pp. 237-268). Routledge.