This is quite an entertaining film, and quite slickly done. The opening scene follows three youths that you just know are up to no good. They pull out knives and attack a blind Puerto Rican boy innocently playing a harmonica on his front porch with his sister. A clear case of premeditated murder. The assistant DA is going after the death penalty until he does some digging. It turns out the blind boy is a general in a Puerto Rican gang, and regularly pimps out his 16yo sister for $.
This revelation seems to change the mind of the ADA, apparently the blind boy wasn't so innocent after all. Why was this important? It did not change the fact that the 3 went to his house with the specific intention of killing him. If anything it provides motivation. Somehow the blind boy's involvement in gangs meant his life was less valuable. While he has the boy's sister on the witness stand the ADA asks her how she earns money, reminding her she is under oath. The admits she is a hooker. "A prostitute?" the ADA wants clarification."Yes, a prostitute..." The defense attorney objects, but the ADA says he is leading somewhere. But he doesn't- he just lets the jury know she has been a prostitute since the age of 14. The jury is shown wide-eyed. Somehow this is relevant? He asks her if she was coerced into it by an older man. Apparently not, they needed money when her mother got sick. He asked what her mother thought about her being a prostitute, she said the mother wished she had died. Remember this is a witness for the prosecution. This pure 'slut-shaming' at it's best. Moral condemnation.
He then goes on to show one of the 3 attackers is mentally challenged, another didn't actually stab the boy, and the third tries to dominate out of fear. essentially he does the defense attorneys job for him. The reasoning given in the film is he wanted to expose THE TRUTH. That truth being that what seems a simple case of good vs evil is more complex- this is all well and good, but there is an underlying message in the film.
Initially the three white kids are presented as thoroughly evil bad 'uns. We learn they are complex and disturbed- more deserving of pity than anger. The Puerto Ricans at first seen as innocent victims are finally portrayed as morally corrupt, inferior in every way to the White Man.
The blind boy's mother wants justice for her son in the middle of the film, and the ADA promises her she will get it. After he has scuppered his own case, she asks him where is the punishment promised for those that killed he son. He tells her a lot of people killed her son. He implies it was his own fault, her fault, the gang's fault, his own people's fault. He walks away proudly, a job well done.
The 3 attackers avoid the death penalty- the mentally challenged one gets sent to a mental hospital, the non-stabber gets a year in juvi, (he's a good kid at heart) and the third gets life in priz. The sentence was probably a good one for the three killers. They were sent to kill the boy by the head of their gang, so although premeditated, they were pawns. There was no mention of pursuing the guy that organised the killing- the Thunderbirds gang leader.
The two gangs go back to the status quo, the white middle class ADA, jury, cops and the audience are reassured minorities have no morals and white kids only err through environmental stress.
This revelation seems to change the mind of the ADA, apparently the blind boy wasn't so innocent after all. Why was this important? It did not change the fact that the 3 went to his house with the specific intention of killing him. If anything it provides motivation. Somehow the blind boy's involvement in gangs meant his life was less valuable. While he has the boy's sister on the witness stand the ADA asks her how she earns money, reminding her she is under oath. The admits she is a hooker. "A prostitute?" the ADA wants clarification."Yes, a prostitute..." The defense attorney objects, but the ADA says he is leading somewhere. But he doesn't- he just lets the jury know she has been a prostitute since the age of 14. The jury is shown wide-eyed. Somehow this is relevant? He asks her if she was coerced into it by an older man. Apparently not, they needed money when her mother got sick. He asked what her mother thought about her being a prostitute, she said the mother wished she had died. Remember this is a witness for the prosecution. This pure 'slut-shaming' at it's best. Moral condemnation.
He then goes on to show one of the 3 attackers is mentally challenged, another didn't actually stab the boy, and the third tries to dominate out of fear. essentially he does the defense attorneys job for him. The reasoning given in the film is he wanted to expose THE TRUTH. That truth being that what seems a simple case of good vs evil is more complex- this is all well and good, but there is an underlying message in the film.
Initially the three white kids are presented as thoroughly evil bad 'uns. We learn they are complex and disturbed- more deserving of pity than anger. The Puerto Ricans at first seen as innocent victims are finally portrayed as morally corrupt, inferior in every way to the White Man.
The blind boy's mother wants justice for her son in the middle of the film, and the ADA promises her she will get it. After he has scuppered his own case, she asks him where is the punishment promised for those that killed he son. He tells her a lot of people killed her son. He implies it was his own fault, her fault, the gang's fault, his own people's fault. He walks away proudly, a job well done.
The 3 attackers avoid the death penalty- the mentally challenged one gets sent to a mental hospital, the non-stabber gets a year in juvi, (he's a good kid at heart) and the third gets life in priz. The sentence was probably a good one for the three killers. They were sent to kill the boy by the head of their gang, so although premeditated, they were pawns. There was no mention of pursuing the guy that organised the killing- the Thunderbirds gang leader.
The two gangs go back to the status quo, the white middle class ADA, jury, cops and the audience are reassured minorities have no morals and white kids only err through environmental stress.