Writing Objectively

The first thing I thought upon writing this blog post was: “How can I write about something I know so little about?”

And by that, I mean how can I write about a recent case. (Not the Serial case).  The case of a friend of a friend, who was accused of killing his own father.

Upon hearing this news, my friend was obviously shocked. He explained to me how completely unbelievable it was that this kid could have any malicious kind of motive.  He was such a nice kid.

Looking back on this, I think of when Sara Koenig said she was “so lucky to come across this kind of sociopath,” (in episode 7, The Opposite of the Prosecution) referencing Adnan.  Adnan, who, somehow, we’ve all come to think of as innocent to a certain extent.

But then once again I took into account that I don’t know this kid.  And keep in mind that because I don’t know him, I’m trying to look at this objectively.

So I’m listening to him talk about this case, and from his perspective, he’s supporting the kid accused.  An idea which I am neither condemning nor reinforcing at this point.  Keep that in mind.

I asked my friend who was associated with the defendant about the cases again and he told me about how he was always trying to help people

He said: “This kid was always trying to help people.  So somebody must have needed a SHIT TON of help if he had to shoot somebody several times with a shot gun.”

He said: “I literally CAN’T imagine him doing something un-warranted.  Like people are gonna say he had a weird side as an offense but, who doesn’t have a weird side? And, does that weird side honestly deserve to be brought up? Because that’s just terrible to me. Because in my opinion, if he does deserve prison time, then I deserve prison time.  There’s very few people I’ve met that I’d consider a better person than him.”

Now I’m thinking, “this is probably what Sarah Koenig was trying to do”.  I really do believe she was trying to be objective as possible while reporting about the mishaps in this case.  If we automatically assume Adnan is innocent, maybe that’s our own fault.

And the point that I’m trying to make I think, is the point that (I think) Sarah Koenig was trying  to make in Episode 11, The Alibi.  When she quotes very specifically that most people can’t wrap their heads around the simple idea of a murderer; they can’t wrap their heads around the idea of someone they knew so well, who was “such a nice kid” committing a murder.  Because in a way, they would be contradicting everything they grew up knowing by thinking that thought.

And I want to ask you, am I thinking like the detective in Adnan’s case? In episode 8, The Deal With Jay;  This detective who, at least I came to think so badly about because he states very specifically that he naturally “has” to assume everyone’s guilty simply because of instinct?  No, I would like to think I’m not maneuvering as he. I’m simply trying to explore idea from an objective point of view.  I would hope.

BUT

On the case:

He said: “It doesn’t take much to consider someone as a brother; especially when your on a team together.”

“And he took TIME, even AFTER practice to help me out with my skills.  I related to him so much because he was always in the same position as me.”

^This makes me think a lot about subjectivity.  He knew when I was taking to him that I was being subjective while also trying (real hard) to be objective, and that made him say: “Maybe that’s why I’m reluctant to talk about it.”

In regard to that was I being like a lawyer?  I would once again hope not.

 

Knowing what I know now, I think it’s safe to say that this is pretty much how we all think, always.  Am I right in saying this?  Am I wrong?  Am I simply coercing someone into thinking a certain way?  But I think thats exactly what Sarah Koenig is trying to do.  And thats not trying to get us to think about the case in a certain way, but trying to get us to think about the way we think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *