How many more? #GunControl in the US

Earlier this week, yet another mass shooting in the US made headlines. At the Umpqua Community College in Oregon, 9 people were killed before the gunman took his own life. This is not an uncommon story in America, and during his presidency, Barack Obama “has had to deliver statements on gun violence 15 times”. In spite of this, and the many incidents of gun violence this year alone, the gun law debate still rages on.

To those outside of America, this debate seems ludicrous – the statistics are clear, firearms have killed more people in the US than terrorist attacks. It is the only developed nation with such lax gun control laws, and in which firearms are so widely and freely available. Just take the video below:

Guns are actively being marketed towards children, with the rifle shown including a pink version to ‘suit’ girls as well as boys. Despite the emphasis on safety, this advert is still frightening in its appeal to American families. Though as a documentary produced by Channel 4 asks, how safe is it to give a child a gun?

Again, opinion on this issue is divided. Some parents argue that as long as children are taught the correct safety procedures, the risks are minimal. Others disagree, and claim that even with safety features and training, equipping children with firearms carries high risk.

So it follows that if a child can own a gun in a high number of states in the US, firearms are pretty easy to come by. Big chains such as Walmart sell guns, and although in-store firearm purchases require background checks, guns purchased from friends and family or at ‘gun shows’ do not. To those outside of America, again this seems crazy. It boils down to quite literally anybody being able to legally buy a firearm, irrespective of safety training or motive.

Now, pro-gun lobbyists and supporters will argue that to tighten gun control laws would restrict the second amendment, and their right to bear arms. Ignoring the fact that the firearm industry is worth billions, and thus keeping laws as they are is firmly in their interests, the other argument that is often cited is that guns make America safer – you can protect yourself and your family from attack. To put it simply, this is wrong. Common sense will tell you that more guns means more accidents, more dangerous attacks, and ultimately more deaths – “the myth of the good guy with a gun”.

So back to the mass shooting in Oregon. The motives/mental health of the individual who committed this crime is as yet unclear, but imagine for a moment that he did not have access to any firearms (another 14 were found at his home) or that security checks at purchase were more stringent, and it is not hard to believe that this tragedy could have had a very different outcome.

This is not an opinion shared by some, with pro-gun supporters instead arguing that teachers, or even students should be able to conceal carry weapons. One twitter user even states “Be a victim, or not. Your choice.”, suggesting that shared blame for the tragedy lies with the gunman and the community college’s “no gun zone” policy.

Such remarks and sentiments miss the point entirely. Not only does it show a complete lack of empathy with the victim’s families, but having students or staff carry guns on site is neither the prevention or the cure for such incidents as this. Equally the decision not to name the gunman in an attempt to stop copycat killings will have a very limited impact. Remove guns, or at the very least significantly tighten gun control laws, and you lessen the risk of gun attacks in the first place. Sure, gun crime will not be completely eradicated, there will always be the potential for incidents to occur, and guns will still be circulated illegally, but the number of deaths and injuries from gun violence will decrease.

His failure to tighten gun control laws is Obama’s one regret from his time in office. The Aurora theatre shooting, the Columbine high school massacre, the Virginia Tech massacre, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and more. How many must follow before America changes its mind and decides to take action?

Update:

Another perspective on #guncontrol in America, particularly in relation to mental health – Last Week Tonight with John Oliver looks at the statistics concerning the perpetrators of gun crime and the victims of gun violence.

Why should politics be any different? #PigGate

This week #PigGate and the ongoing feud between David Cameron and Lord Ashcroft seemed to be, quite literally, the talk of town.

As far comedy goes, #PigGate is pretty much the golden ticket, hand delivered and presented on a plate. To add insult to injury, the alleged incident has strange similarities to an episode of the dark, speculative satire Black Mirror, written by Charlie Brooker.

It would probably be an understatement then to say that the media has had a field day, the PR team a raging headache. But at the end of it all, does #PigGate have a place in politics, or is it just another mudslinging tactic by a man who didn’t get the job he was promised?

Some will argue that #PigGate is of public interest, after all the alleged incident involves the Prime Minister himself, and in a less than flattering context. But in a YouGov poll it turned out that 62% of us didn’t care, 13% didn’t know whether it mattered, and only 25% of us did care. Obviously these statistics only represent the small sample of people asked, but it does suggest that for the majority of people, #PigGate is unimportant and potentially distracting.

So does this mean that as a mudslinging tactic Lord Ashcrofts’s allegations in Call Me Dave, have failed to do their task? They seem to have had little effect on public opinion… Well that entirely depends on what you believe the purpose of Ashcroft’s statements to be – it’s no secret that Cameron and Ashcroft are not on the best of terms, but the unofficial biography was released after the election and before the Tory party conference (you see Ashcroft is still a Tory party supporter). So was the purpose of this shock story publicity and maybe just a touch of revenge? Most likely, and in that respect it was entirely successful – the media has jumped on the story, and the book has been talked about widely as a consequence.

This aside however, it still seems rather childish. In most other professions, the same comments would not be tolerated without substantial evidence. When the stakes are as high as they are, why should politics be any different irrespective of one’s political persuasion?

Serial, Social Anthropology & Investigative Journalism

If you haven’t heard of the podcast phenomenon Serial, you are one of the very few left. Hosted by Sarah Koenig, and with it’s very own spin off show Undisclosed, the series follows the story of Adnan Syed, the man accused and currently serving time for the murder of Hae Min Lee – a crime he strenuously denies committing.

But what has Serial got to do with social anthropology, and what has social anthropology got to do with investigative journalism?

First it’s worth noting, in it’s most basic sense, what social anthropology actually is: “the study of humankind; the comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development”. Similarly, for many investigative journalists, human behaviour is at the core of their work – what drives people, how organisations and groups interact with one another, and why some behaviours are accepted in certain cultures but shunned by others.

Rather ironically, in a podcast by the Annenberg School for Communication – Serial and the Possibilities of Podcasting – Kevin Gotkin, Corrina Laughlin and Mariam Durrani examine how the face of investigative journalism and social anthropology is evolving due to the rising popularity of podcasts. It considers not only how we contextualise information and tell stories, namely via tone, voice and phrasing, but how this differs from the cues communicated by the written word.

The boundaries of investigative journalism have also shifted with the popularity of sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Undeniably, the dawn of the ‘tech age’ has brought with it a whole new set of behaviours – the culture of instant gratification, the urge to update and publicly share intimate details of everyday life, and the vlog/blogosphere explosion of recent years.

So how are these all connected, and why does it matter?

Well, you could argue that it all comes down to communication. And it matters because how we communicate can have a direct effect on our behaviour, and how we interpret future information.

Crucial to this is the source of information itself, and whether we deem it trustworthy or reliable. Take YouTube for example, the video format allows us to pick up on visual cues such as body language, as well as aural cues such as voice, tone and intonation. Twitter is also an interesting and relevant source of information – we can recycle and retweet updates, reliability is also influenced by follower numbers, and the limited number of characters forces users to be more economical, direct and considerate of ‘buzzwords’. Facebook on the other hand is built around a network of friends, we can like, share and comment on what we see, and thus the information circulated on the site tends to be deemed socially accepted by our peers and subsequently more valuable to ourselves.

Unsurprisingly then, journalistic outlets are also shifting to reflect this new trend in how we share information. What was once limited to print and television has found itself transformed into podcasts and vlogs, you need only look at the success of Serial and the popularity of Vice on YouTube.

The result is a bordeless network of communication and sharing platforms, and for social anthropology, the field is more current, alive and exciting than ever before.

Has Reality TV Gone Too Far?

In recent years hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘reality TV’ programmes have graced our screens – everything from Benefits Street and Judge Judy, to Keeping up with Kardashians and Geordie Shore, The Hills, Made in Chelsea, Catfish, TOWIE and even Dogs on the Dole. The list is seemingly endless, and judging by the media’s response and their continuing production, they are a popular choice amongst viewers.

For many, ‘reality TV’ is a harmless watch – it requires little concentration and is packed with entertaining ‘real-life’ drama. Unlike soaps, reality TV also often affords the viewer the opportunity to follow its ‘stars’ off screen, across social media such as twitter, instagram and Facebook. But with each new programme, and each new year the invasive nature of these releases seems to reach new heights. Perhaps this is in part due to the competitive nature of broadcasting, or indeed the urge to test the boundaries of television. But it also suggests a change in social attitudes, of what is not only acceptable but appropriate to share with the world concerning the most intimate details of our lives. The question is, has reality TV gone too far?

To get to grips with this, it’s worth noting the history of reality TV, or rather when reality TV as we know it, really began to hit its stride. One programme that found itself particularly successful was Big Brother, aptly named after the police state of Orwell’s 1984. The concept, as I’m sure you are aware, was simple; a group of strangers would be placed in a house for a set period of time with no contact from the outside world, and every interaction filmed as part of a social experiment. Other early success stories also included Laguna Beach, which followed a number of high school students, and The Simple Life, which followed Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie as they undertook manual, low-paying jobs. This is also the point at which reality TV began to change – entertainment value and ratings seemed to outweigh social experiment, and so was born the era of ‘scripted reality’, paradoxical as that may seem.

Scripted reality itself concerns producers involving themselves in the lives of the ‘subjects’ they are following, coercing willing cast members to interact with one another as tensions are fraught, and deliberately engineering explosive scenes for the benefit of ratings and entertainment value. From a business perspective it makes sense – no one would watch if nothing happened.

But from a different stand point, it seems as though what started out as a genuine look at human nature and how we interact with other people, has now become a cheap shot at ‘stardom’ and B-list celebrity status. Either the ‘situations’ created by producers are crazier than ever, or the programme’s ‘stars’ play up, escalate and feed on ‘shocking’ behaviour – take for example Geordie Shore, later series of Big Brother and even I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.

Undoubtedly, some people love reality TV and the drama that it contains, but for others reality TV has become like watching a car crash; you don’t really want to see what’s happened, but you can’t look away either. Perhaps the most recent example of one such show is Young, Free & Single: Live, in which participants, filmed of course, go on a date each week before watching the ‘highlights’ back live, and receive dating advice and feedback via social media – cue numerous awkward exchanges. This then brings us to the problem of what reality TV offers us that is of value. Shows such as Keeping Up With the Kardashians, The Only Way is Essex and Made in Chelsea have little bearing on our own lives, and yet people take a keen interest in the affairs and gossip of the people involved, particularly as they air their dirty laundry.

Again, it seems harmless enough – those involved are willing participants, they are aware of the media’s watchful eye and they can enjoy the benefits of their position. But as headlines seek to become more attention grabbing than the last, reality TV has become even more exploitative than before. The process of editing, creating high drama, and manipulating the order in which ‘scenes’ are viewed and dissected, are all for ‘entertainment purposes’, but there seems no limit as to what can be justified under this umbrella term. How else could the bitching, fighting and general self-absorption shown by some reality stars be packaged?

So, have we gone too far?

Some would say so, and many would be inclined to agree. Yet in spite of this there is still the sense that reality TV has its place, that at the risk of drowning in the sheer volume of reality programmes out there, hidden gems are to be found – programmes like Educating Yorkshire and First Dates spring to mind.

Certainly though, love it or hate it, guilty pleasure or not, reality TV is going nowhere fast.

A Dead Art?

It’s a simple question – is reading a dead art?

With the arrival of smartphones and tablets, some people certainly think so. A quick look around the train, and chances are the majority of people’s heads are turned downwards towards a screen, close your eyes, and you can usually hear someone furiously tapping away on a laptop. These same trains not so long ago were once filled with people reading the paper, or a book they’d bothered to take with them. It is a far cry from reading’s heyday in the 18th and 19th century, when in it’s infancy one reporter cries that “[his] sight is every-where offended by these foolish, yet dangerous, books” (Sylph no. 5, October 6, 1796).

So, where have all the books gone, and why?

With the advent of the internet, so too came the advent of ‘instant gratification’ and the ‘culture of want’. We are more connected than ever before, and with the world seemingly at our fingertips, how information is conveyed has been condensed and changed out of recognition. Take twitter for example – within a few minutes, we can be up to date with the latest news and trends from across the world. This is in many ways great, but it has also altered the way that we process information.

By this it is meant that our attention span seems to have changed – we like the instant gratification of receiving lots of information in a very short space of time. Whilst books contain a wealth of information, they require patience and time that some people are unwilling to give.

The tech age however, despite the decline of bookshops on the high street, has not forgotten the value of books. In and amongst the distractions of modern day life, the rise of the ebook has been closely followed, and not without it’s fair share of controversy.

People are split – some value the physical book over the ebook, whilst others believe that this is the new dawn of publishing and readership. Both arguments have merit, though it’s undeniable that more books than ever before are in circulation, and that for a generation of people, how they read has changed significantly.

This is particularly true of younger people who have grown up in a digital age, filled with computer and video games, youtube and other social media sites. What may surprise people however, is that in an attempt to counteract this, more and more children are being encouraged to read – children’s books and young adult (YA) fiction features heavily in the bestsellers list of 2014.

So, is reading a dead art?

The answer would have to be an overwhelming no. People are still reading, perhaps just a little differently than before. But one certainty that we can be sure of, is that in whatever form, the ‘book’ does not look set to die out.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/Art-of-the-Book/

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/13/sales-printed-books-fell-150m–five-years

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/childrens-books-the-bestsellers-of-2014-20150102-12gxlg.html

Experimental Education: Are Our Kids Tough enough?

Not long ago, the BBC’s Are our kids tough enough? three part documentary delved into Britain’s education system to ask whether, in an increasingly global market, British schools are up to par – “in a unique experiment, five teachers from China take over the education of fifty teenagers in a Hampshire school to see whether the high-ranking Chinese education system can teach us a lesson.”

The result: a mixed bag. Admittedly the ‘Chinese School’ scored higher in the final results to those in the ‘British School’, but at what cost?

To answer this isn’t as easy as declaring one system better than the other – a number of important factors must be taken into consideration. Perhaps the most glaringly obvious of which is the difference in culture…

In China education is revered, and is the means by which one will be judged successful by society and peers. It is precisely why those in the teaching profession command respect and are held in high esteem. Juxtaposed with this is Britain’s unfair adage “those that can’t do, teach”. In the media the education system and those that are part of it, namely teachers, are often harangued despite contending with a whole host of issues that are out of their hands. For some students, though not all, education is also taken for granted – interestingly the Chinese teachers commented on how this might in part be a symptom of the welfare state, a safety net that is not afforded to those in China.

Directly related to this is the difference in discipline – it was noticeable that the year 9 students were misbehaved at times, talking over the Chinese teachers and disrupting teaching. No doubt some of this is due in part to students taking advantage of new teachers in a somewhat unfamiliar setting. But on the other hand, tellingly at the emergency parents meeting held at the Chinese school, one parent whispers to another “can I just say, isn’t it the school that should be getting the discipline going?” – the answer to which is no, it should be there to reinforce discipline.

Thirdly is the difference in school hours. The Chinese school day last considerably longer than the British school day. Naturally, for the group of 13-14 year olds the prospect of early starts and late finishes was decidedly unwelcome, but for the Chinese teachers this meant more teaching time.

And lastly the style of teaching. The difference could not have been greater between the British and Chinese styles – the latter involved lecturing from the front and dictating information with little engaging interaction with the students, whilst the former relies on allowing the students to work out information, experiment, explore and most importantly, question.

But if the Chinese school got better results, what does this matter? Well, that depends entirely on what we want for our kids. The Chinese system caters for students that learn in a very rigid manner, removes a lot if not all of school’s creative elements, and leaves limited or no time for hobbies and relaxation. Sure, there are things that we can learn from the Chinese education system, but school is not just about results – it’s about equipping students with skills that they can take with them long after they leave.

Already, with the seemingly endless culture of targets that change with every government, we have forgotten about this sentiment. School shouldn’t just be about academic achievement, not every student is suited to A-levels and university. That’s ok, except with the emphasis constantly and consistently focussed on achieving the right grades, important vocational skills such as construction and mechanics are forgotten. It’s time we remembered them, although judging by the rise of free schools, the riddance of modular exams and proposed longer teaching days, all in a bid to better academic targets, this seems unlikely.

Muslim Drag Queens & “Iran’s Sex Change Solution”

Last night the Channel 4 documentary Muslim Drag Queens aired despite Asif Quraishi, and other muslim drag queens featured in the programme, receiving death threats.

According to Channel 4’s website the film is a “powerful documentary meeting members of Britain’s underground Muslim drag queen community. How do gay Muslim’s publicly reconcile their sexuality with their cultural identity and traditions?” The answer is with great difficulty – the controversy sparked by the documentary alone is testament to this.

Within often close knit Asian and Muslim communities, homosexuality is a sensitive subject – it is widely seen as shameful, sinful and wholly incompatible with one’s cultural or religious identity. This is exactly what Asif Quaraishi, Rezzia Rani and Zareena Khan set out to challenge, hoping to stir up a conversation within the Asian community of acceptance and perhaps even support.

It is notable throughout the documentary however, of the distinct absence of the Asian and Muslim community – a march organised in honour of Dr Naz Mahmood, a gay Asian man who committed suicide after coming out to his family, registered disappointment in Asif Lahore as it became apparent that those who came out in support were overwhelmingly not of the Muslim or Asian community. To Asif Lahore this seemed to suggest that the community does not care, that this issue is not something that concerns them.

It is important to remember however that this is an issue that will not go away overnight, it will take time and perseverance – change from within the community is needed just as much as support from those outside of it.

The documentary goes on to describes a double life led by many gay Asian men, whereby they are caught between two identities. What is striking about this is how for some men the drag community offers a kind of lifeline – it is easier to accept, and maybe even ‘rationalise’ their feelings, if they are attracted to men who possess feminine mannerisms and dress as females.

But what about those in other places, living in countries where being homosexual is not only illegal, but can be punishable by death. Not long ago the BBC highlighted the plight of many homosexual men and women who flee from Iran to Turkey, to escape Iran’s so called “sex change solution”.

In Iran “clerics do … accept the idea that a person may be trapped in a body of the wrong sex. So homosexuals can be pushed into having gender reassignment surgery” – not only can this be psychologically traumatic for those that are simply homosexual and not transgender, but can also rip families apart as people seek to flee Iran having faced the option of surgery or death, in a disturbing number of cases threatened by the family.

From this it is clear that LGBTQ rights and acceptance have a long way to go in the gay and Asian community, not only in Britain but around the world. For the time being, Asif Quaraishi, Rezzia Rani and Zareena Khan can only be commended for their brave decision to appear publicly and openly about their sexuality. Hopefully this show of bravery will encourage others in the gay and Asian community to do the same.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-drag-queens-stars-of-channel-4-show-brave-death-threats-to-appear-in-film-10461064.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29832690

Why the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Earlier this year the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge hit the headlines. If you don’t know what the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge is, a quick google search will bring up a number of ‘fail videos’ and stern warnings surrounding the dangers of the #kyliejennerchallenge trend. The challenge is simple – all that it entails is placing a glass over the lips and sucking, in effect creating an airlock that causes the lips to swell temporarily.

It may sound harmless enough but beyond the short term bruising that it can cause, the challenge suggests a worrying obsession with fad beauty treatments, and the seemingly limitless power of ‘image concious’ public figures on the wider public. Take the somewhat baffling fascination with the Kardashian family; the picture that ‘broke the internet’ garnered unprecedented interest, and just a few hours ago the Daily Mail reported the breaking ‘news’ that Khloe Jenner has suffered a wardrobe malfunction whilst filming Keeping up with the Kardashians. If you’re interested one news reporter in America decided to take a stand against this kind of ‘non-news’ which you can watch below.

So who is to blame for this obsession? The media, the ‘celebrities’ or the public? How about a combination of all three, endlessly circling one another.

It is true that fashions have always come and gone, but in the age of the internet and social media it is easier than ever for trends to go viral, for the media to jump on the ever changing ‘looks’ of high profile figures. Every picture is scrutinised in detail, people are judged on their clothing, and many tabloid or lifestyle magazines feature exercise and diet tips for that ‘perfect body’. For the sake of clarity, it is worth mentioning that this is not an issue that concerns only women. Men are a part of this trend too, you need only look at the rapidly growing male fitness industry and the sheer variety of protein whey and creatine supplements that are available on the market.

People buy, read, share and comment on all this information. They, whether unwittingly or not, create the demand and the media responds, producing yet more of the same attention grabbing ‘news’ stories in minute detail. And well, a celebrity is only a celebrity if they remain in the public eye, under the watchful gaze of both the media and the public. And so in many cases this attention, though not always welcomed, is often manipulated and played upon to their advantage.

This vicious circle is relentless. But more worryingly it is normalised. Over the past few years a handful of dangerous beauty trends stand out, namely the thigh gap trend and the rise of the quick fix diet pill. Many more slip through the net as we strive for beauty at the cost of health. Even challengers to mainstream ideals of beauty, the so called ‘big booty movement’ for example, can shift the positive message that they try to encourage away from health, whilst also mirroring the same body shaming tactics that some media outlets appear to cultivate.

The answer? Well that is perhaps less obvious, but almost certainly should begin with balance, rationalisation and health education. There is always going to be sensationalist headlines, and beauty ideals that only a tiny fraction of the population can even dream of achieving. The emphasis should be on health, health, health. The more people that know this, the better.

The Battle for Labour Leadership

In case you hadn’t noticed the Labour leadership debate is causing quite the stir in British politics. So much so, that not one but two former Prime Ministers have waded into the argument. Now that voting has opened, what exactly have we learnt about the Labour candidates and British politics more widely?

• That people are tired of politicians avoiding answering straightforward questions, not least because this is a leadership debate – the successful candidate will have to be decisive, and win over the public if they are to win the next general election.

• That Jeremy Corbyn, who started out as the dark horse of the election, has become the focal point of the debate – a YouGov survey for The Times revealed that of the polled 1,411 eligible Labour leadership voters, 53% backed Jeremy Corbyn.

• That ‘credible’ is perhaps the most used word of the debate so far – largely in response to Corbyn’s left-wing policies.

• That nothing screams panic like Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall sending a letter to Labour HQ over the integrity of the ballot, and the alleged withheld contact details of trade union members.

• That politics can turn pernicious very quickly: Toby Young, a journalist for the Telegraph, wrote an article encouraging Tory supporters to pay the £3 membership fee, back Jeremy Corbyn, and “consign the party to electoral oblivion in 2020”.

• As a result of the #toriesforCorbyn campaign, Labour now faces the daunting task of sifting through and identifying members that lack genuine support for the party.

• That of the four candidates, three have taken drugs, amazingly by their own admission. Their honesty in this regard is refreshing.

• That despite the polls and speculation, the contest isn’t over for the other candidates- take the general election, polls throughout the run up suggested a hung parliament was almost certain, and yet on the day the Tories managed a shocking overall majority.

• But most importantly, that enough people cared about the outcome that Labour Party membership has surged, with 121,000 registered supporters .

Whatever the outcome of the vote, it is this last point that Labour must remember. After the battering that the party received during the general election earlier this year with the extraordinary rise of the SNP and the resignation of Ed Miliband, this debate presents a real opportunity for Labour to rebuild itself and its grass-root support. Every Government needs a good opposition to ensure that the right decisions are made, or at least that the right questions are asked and controversial policies are challenged.

As for creating a credible party that stands a chance in the 2020 general election, there’s plenty of time for the party to iron out its issues, devise policies that will appeal to Labour supporters, and present a ‘credible’ campaign.

When Money Talks – The Justice System

By very definition justice is the “maintenance of what is just or right by the exercise of authority or power; assignment of deserved reward or punishment”. Thus it would be logical to assume that the justice system is predicated upon this definition. This however is not always the case.

With the click of a button you can find a whole host of examples from around the world where justice has not been served, and it would be very easy to isolate these instances to corrupt governments and law enforcers in places such as North Korea, India and those in the middle east. This however would be a gross misrepresentation. The West enjoys, on the whole, a set of legal privileges that are denied to many in other parts of the world. But the system isn’t perfect, and as recent scandals such the allegations of bribery within FIFA show, money can have a large part to play. This issue doesn’t just concern large corporations however, and we’re not talking obvious crimes like bribing the judge or jury, using intimidation etc. We’re talking about the problems in the system that are far more insidious and embedded in its foundations. To illustrate this point it is perhaps best to draw attention to a well documented case, that of Robert Durst.

Earlier this year, a documentary was released by HBO. That documentary was The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst. For those that don’t know, Robert Durst belongs to a New York property empire worth billions of dollars. In 2003 he was acquitted of murder, despite having admitted that he dismembered his neighbour Morris Black. At the time the documentary was released, Durst also faced speculation that he was involved in the disappearance of his first wife in 1982, and the murder of his close friend Susan Berman in 2000. Shortly after the documentary’s release, Durst was arrested and is due to be extradited to Los Angeles to face a murder related to Susan Berman.

Why is all this important? Let’s focus specifically on the case of Morris Black. Due to good fortune, luck or whatever you want to call it, Robert Durst happened to be born with money – despite the horrific nature of the crime he was placed under arrest for, he was able to pay the bail bond upfront and maintain his liberty until trial. Whilst in no way should a person be berated for the wealth they have inherited or amassed by legitimate means, if a person of lesser means was accused of the same crime they would not be in a position to retain their freedom by paying the bail bond (and as Durst did, go on the run). This is completely biased and unfair precisely because at it’s crux lies the fundamental favour that system affords to those that can pay their way out, at least temporarily.

Now as for the trial, Durst was also in the position whereby he could afford not just one lawyer, but two – and two top lawyers at that. Again, this is by happy accident of birth, and yet in a criminal case, a client’s lawyer has a huge impact on the final verdict – it can be the difference between arguing a case well, and getting the client a not guilty verdict. Just to remind you, Durst admitted dismembering Black and yet the brilliant self-defence narrative that his team put forward allowed him to be acquitted. The same resources, by which I mean the defence team lawyers and researchers, would not ordinarily be available to the average person accused of the same crime. Again, the system seems to favour the person who can throw the most amount of money at the case (although having a top lawyer doesn’t mean you’ll automatically get off scot-free).

You could argue that this is an isolated case. Perhaps so, although that would be highly improbable. There are cases around the world that receive far less media attention and press, yet are no less serious concerning wealthy defendants who may well be guilty and yet receive very different verdicts. As as disclaimer it should be made clear that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and rightly so, and that injustice doesn’t just befall the less wealthy any more than it does the well off. But in system that is meant to be fair and just, it seems almost unbelievable that money could tip the scales of case instead of what is right and true.

After all, shouldn’t the system be in place to level the playing field? It shouldn’t matter how much you’re worth, how well a lawyer can manipulate the case, only whether you are guilty of the crime or innocent.