Criminological theories and their applications

¶ … Blue Line (1988), directed by Errol Morris, released by American Playhouse Productions depicts the story of a crime that was committed against a police officer in Texas. There are two key characters in this documentary film. Although more were presented, the two that make up the entire case are Randall Adams and David Harris. These two individuals are at the center of a murder committed by one of them; but it is unclear who it was that actually committed the murder. Randall Adams was one of the men accused of murdering a cop. He allegedly was only a passenger, an innocent bystander in the whole situation, who got blamed for something that he claims he did not do. He was a 28-year-old man at the time, from Ohio, who just happened to meet David Harris at a gas station one day, and hitched a ride with Harris. Adams seems to be portrayed as a quiet individual who got caught up in unfortunate circumstances and got wound up in the whole ordeal. David Harris on the other hand was a sixteen-year-old boy who was on a destructive path from the beginning. After running away from home in a small town in Texas and stealing a pistol from his father, he broke into the neighbors house, stole the keys to their car, and hijacked the car to run off with it. It was in this same car that he met Adams and continued on their way. Harris was described as a person "who showed no remorse" (The Thin Blue Line, 1988) and took little responsibility of whatever it was that he did. He was someone who loved to gloat about his crimes and was always proud of showcasing them to whoever it was that wanted to hear them.

The crime that allegedly took place was the murder of a Texas police officer. The police officer was parked on the side of the road with his partner, whom were both eating a snack. The offenders drove in their car with the headlights off, so when the cop noticed this, he pulled them over. As the cop walked to the car, his partner stayed in the car, waiting for him to do his job and come back. When the officer reached the car window, he asked for their registration information, and the offenders just shot at him and drove away. The partner of the officer who was killed did not follow mandated protocol and did not report the injury of the officer right away, so the officer bled to death. The whole crime revolves around the fact that not enough people were there to really account what happened.

There are many ambiguities to this case. First and foremost, the director of the film, Errol Morris makes it clear from the beginning of his documentary, that the wrong person was charged with the crime. There was no clear cut picture as to who it was that pulled the trigger. No concrete evidence could be found to actually blame anyone with the crime, yet a prosecution was made against the person who most likely did not even commit the given crime. Randall Adams was sentenced to death after going in front of a jury and testifying that he did not commit the crime. The person who most likely and had the most motivation to commit the crime was David Harris, and yet nothing happened to him. They let him go as if nothing had ever even happened concerning him. Harris however was the reason why Adams and himself were even found. He bragged to his friends that he had shot a police officer and that he had gotten away with it. He was trying to show to his friends that he was able to commit a crime, but when he was seized by the police, Harris told them that he was just playing around and that he had not committed the crime, but that his friend Adams, was actually the one who pulled the trigger. The entire case was built on this statement, yet the weapon that was used belonged to Harris, the car that the crime was committed in was stolen by Harris, and the one with the most motivation to shoot the officer was Harris. Harris was involved with various burglaries around the state and was in a sociopathic crime spree that could have easily triggered him to murder the officer.

The documentary clearly depicts the Texas's justice system's eagerness to blame someone with the crime, and their inability to want to charge a minor with a crime that most likely than not, he committed. David Harris was a sixteen-year-old boy, who although had something to do with the crime, if not actually committed the crime himself, would have not been subject to the death penalty because of his age. Knowing that someone had to get charged for the murder, and in the case, the murder of a cop, the system was looking for someone to hold accountable, although the evidence was not concrete in any way and was entirely based on hearsay and the statement of an offender. Even the other female officer that was with the officer that was murdered could not identify anything viable about the suspects, the situation, or even the car that was used. She could not even give a description of the license plate. All this would have been at least a good lead to catching who it actually was. There was also not even enough physical evidence for the prosecutor to blame Adams for the crime, but since they needed a scapegoat to close the case, they chose to go with Adams who was 28 years old, was at least thought to be present at the scene of the crime, and was old enough to prosecute fully and be subject to the death penalty, and that is exactly what ended up occurring.