Netflix released a mini series called “Making A Murder,” it is based on the crimes that so called were committed by Steven Avery. Steven Avery is known for having a rough past and poor upbringing in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin; his family is known for not fitting into the norm and they are considered to be in the lower class. In the year 1985, Steven Avery was accused of raping Penny; Penny is the opposite of Steven Avery. She is from the upper class and was considered to be a socialite in Manitowoc. Once Avery was found guilty in 1985, he served 18 years in prison for a crime he was falsely convicted of. But! Throughout those 18 years the Manitowoc County sheriff department knew he was innocent.

Throughout those 18 years, the Manitowoc sheriff department received a confession from the actual rapist. I believe because of this false criminal accusation towards Steven, him actually serving the crime, and this would have a negative impact on Manitowoc sheriff department/county. The sheriff department did everything wrong regarding that crime and they didn’t follow the right lawful procedures. Finally, in 2003, Avery was released from Prison because of the confession from the actual rapist and the DNA that was on Penny wasn’t Avery’s, but the rapist. In the year 2004, Avery sued Manitowoc Sheriff Department for him being falsely accused of a crime he didn’t commit, overall he sued the department for $36 million. In 2005, car photographer Teresa Halbach goes missing after she took pictures of Avery’s cars. Later on in the year she was found murder and once again Manitowoc Sheriff Department accused Avery of murdering Teresa. In 2007, he is convicted of the crime and is now serving life in prison for her murder.

Now, I understand why Avery sued Manitowoc Sheriff Department because he was falsely accused of a crime he didn’t commit, served 18 years of his life, his family was separated, his wife divorced him, and much more. While you’re in prison for so long, your mentality begins to crack and you’re not ready for the outside the world. Which in his case, he most definitely wasn’t! Where ethics comes into play is how this documentary question’s every notion of what their audience maybe thinking. Also, it questions whether or not documentary films a new form of journalistic skills. The reason why I state that because the filmmakers took 10 years to do research, interview, and etc. to show why they believe or why we the audience should believe that Avery is innocent. Plus! They showed how Manitowoc Sheriff Department is guilty of framing Avery again because they are afraid to ruin their reputations and they want to avoid paying that large settlement.

The ethical dilemmas or choices made in this film is how the filmmakers paved what their viewers should think. The reason why I state that because after watching a Making A Murder, I realized that Steven Avery was actually innocent. How did I know that he was innocent? I knew he was innocent because what was I shown in the film mini-series; the film series seemed very biased and it seems as though the filmmakers felt or already knew that he was innocent. So, they had to make us the viewers see it from their perspectives and understand why they believe he was innocent.

The ethics that comes into play into Steven’s storyline is, is that because Steven served time for those 18 years of his life, was that the cause of him committing the murder of Teresa Halbach? While in prison, prison can change you mentally and physically especially if you want to live and survive. So, anything is acceptable when it comes to that. Plus! for him to be locked up so long and for him to finally get out; did his mentality change? If Steven was no good from the beginning and had a rough past; was it right for him to be locked up?

Is it unethical to believe that a sheriff department could actually frame someone for a crime that they didn’t commit? No it’s not unethical, they reason why I state that is because America has long history regarding crime of someone being falsely accused of a crime they didn’t commit. Some law enforcement officers accused some individuals of a false crime to be done with a case or to gain a good reputation. The ethical dilemmas I see in this film, is whatever you have done in your past will always catch up to you. Steven was arrested several times because of petty crimes he committed and his reckless behavior as well as lighting up a cat alive. When you look at his past and now it makes you wonder did he actually commit the crime? But! I believe our pasts never defines who we are, it is what we do now that defines us. The filmmakers even show us that whatever we do in our past, who we befriend, and what class we live in will always define who we are in the present when it actually shouldn’t.

After watching this long miniseries, it made me question myself. Who should I surround myself within my circle and always watch what I do; it sort of makes you paranoid because anyone could be in Steven’s shoes. I always wondered if filmmakers that directs and writes documentary films are they the new journalists. According to Nate Jones writer of Vulture, the filmmakers stated “From the research we did there wasn’t a need to actually construct anything: It’s a very interesting world, there’s a pretty broad cast of characters, and we applied our own narrative filmmaking techniques to ensure we were able to show the organic arcs of all these people as they were experiencing this story.” In actuality I believe they are journalists, but one thing they should have done in this film is not to be one sided. Yes, I know that Steven is innocent, but for the victim’s family and to not make the film one sided. The filmmakers should have showed both sides of the story and let the audience choose if Steven is innocent or not.