Review of After Innocence (2005) by V H — 08 Feb 2006

[i]After Innocence[/i] is a documentary featuring seven men who were convicted of crimes they didn't commit, languished in jail cells for up to 23 years, and were eventually exonerated. Most of them were cleared based on the results of DNA tests which weren't yet available at the time of their trials, but in one case, the real killer eventually confessed.

Lest you think that this sort of thing only happens to poor, uneducated black men, half of these guys are white, and all of them are articulate. One used to be a cop. Another was a sergeant in the army. In most cases, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. One was wearing the same color sweatshirt as the real rapist. Another had the same long blonde hair.

All of the guys figured that their arrest was just one great big mistake and that their innocence would become apparent in their trial. All of them figured wrong.

There seem to be three main points the filmmaker is trying to make here. One is that the death penalty should be abolished because it leaves no recourse in the case of wrongful convictions. True enough, but I think this argument misses the point. The death penalty should be abolished because it's barbaric. Isn't that enough?

The second point is that our criminal justice system is messed up. The film implies that the men featured in this movie are just the tip of the iceberg but it doesn't address any sort of specifics as to exactly what is being done wrong or what we should do to correct it. At least a couple of these guys were wrongly identified by the crime victims in police lineups. I've read about proposed police lineup reforms to help reduce the chance of misidentification, such as presenting suspects sequentially rather than all at once, but this subject isn't even mentioned here.

The last point is that when wrongly accused victims are finally released from prison, there's usually no compensation whatsoever for the time they spent behind bars. They receive no counseling or job assistance like they would if they'd been released on parole. Their records aren't even automatically expunged. So once they finish celebrating, they often have a hard time adjusting to life back in the real world.

All of the guys in the movie are incredibly good sports considering what happened to them. In several cases, they went to jail in their early 20s and weren't released until they were in their early 40s. But despite having spent almost half of their lives behind bars, they all claim to be over their anger and trying to move on.

One guy named Ronald Cotton spent eleven years in jail based on the testimony of a young college student who was raped at knifepoint. The victim stared at her attacker's face, attempting to memorize it. The next day, she described it to one of those police artists who make composite sketches that look like everyone and no one at the same time. Someone saw the sketch in the paper and thought he recognized the guy. (I can think of no greater insult than to be told that you look like a police sketch.).

Cotton was brought in and the victim picked him out of a lineup, probably because he looked more like the mutant sketch creature than any of the other guys. Eventually, DNA testing was invented and, voila, eleven years later, Cotton was freed. The crazy thing is, Cotton not only forgave his accuser; now they're pals! They meet and hug and make speeches together about the danger of convicting solely on eyewitness testimony. This amazes me. I would surely hate her forever.

This film is not without its moving moments and its subjects are certainly sympathetic. But good intentions aside, it never really grabbed me. Perhaps there were just too many stories being told at once for me to get really caught up in any one of them. And as I've said before, noble causes don't necessarily result in great documentaries.

For those, you also need cute penguins.