Garza very nearly unravels his team when he takes the defense for the cop accused of violating a Hispanic man's civil rights through enforcing Arizona's new anti-illegal-immigrant law. In the end, his closing remarks to the jury sum it all up: the law may be unjust, and probably is. It lays the populace wide open to abuse from racist police officers, and puts honest officers in a bad situation. However, we cannot hold the police to blame for enforcing the law. That's their job. If the law is unjust, there are proper channels for handling that, through the courts, the legislature, and the voting booth. We cannot, and must not, sacrifice a man who was just trying to do his job in order to make a political point. I see this series as more like Law & Order used to be - it's not so much about the characters as it's about the cases. Garza's flip from conservative justice to crusading attorney is hard to swallow, I agree, even in light of his father's death and the pivotal case in the pilot episode. But the series seems to me to be less about Garza and his team's character development than it is about our legal system, which is in terrible shape, and needs someone who knows it from the inside out to do some serious remodeling. We've painted ourselves into a corner as a country. The very concept of justice has been lost, replaced by adherence to precedent and procedure and rules. This show offers us a chance to re-examine what we have done, and consider the options for where we might go and how to get there. Look past the sometimes formulaic dialog, and the Superman complex that our flawed lead character has, and see the show for what it is: a sharp critique of the United States that we'd better pay close attention to, if we want to find our way out of quagmires like the Arizona profiling law.
1 Review
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
