Incriminating Evidence

I thought that it was really interesting how when we watched “The House I Live In” we discussed how the information presented in the documentary could be used as incriminating evidence and the subjects in the documentary are in danger of being prosecuted. However, when we viewed “Inside Job” that wasn’t mentioned at all even when the crimes of manipulating the economy (I believe) are┬ásignificantly more severe than drug use. I feel like we have a certain bias towards educated vs. non-educated people manipulating the system. All the people in Wall Street are educated and manipulate the system in their favor while putting millions of people at a disadvantage and no one is quick to anger with them and call for justice. However, it’s so easy for people to demonize crimes committed by less educated people and be enraged that they dare test the system. I think there are many factors leading into this phenomenon, (race, class, education level) but it makes it no less disturbing.

3 thoughts on “Incriminating Evidence”

  1. I agree. But technically some of the people on Wall Street did not truly break laws. By selling “shitty” deals and then betting against the deal, they broke a moral code of trading. They told their clients the sale was safe and well and actually bet against it letting their clients down and giving them false information. While obviously what they did there is a ‘crime’ it is not a law they broke in that process.

  2. It is interesting to look back and realize that we didn’t mention anything about the Wall Street bankers that we said about the inmates in The House I Live in. I do agree with Nathan however. Looking strictly at the laws, nothing they did specifically broke a law. But I think you do raise a good point about how this is indicative of our perception and biases against educated v. uneducated members of the society.

Leave a Reply to Francesca Blood Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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