Stuck in the Middle

The “Better Half” episode of Lie to Me presented what was, on its face, a rather simple case in which Foster and Torres are asked to assist in the investigation of a murder within the rap music industry. The victim, Dante Edwards, a member of the group affiliated with rap star Little Sid, was shot and killed; the initial suspect is rival rapper, Caden, or a member of his group.

Background information on Caden reveals that his music is particularly violent and glorifies murder. When Torres and Foster arrive at Caden’s home, they comment on its size and affluence; when they present themselves for an interview with Caden, his cousin and deputy, “B,” tells them that Caden does not speak to the police because it would have a negative impact on his album sales and reputation within the rap community. However, Caden relents and grants an initial interview. The interview between Foster, Torres, law enforcement, and “B,” is fruitless in establishing a clear link between Caden and Dante’s death. Indeed, Torres detects genuine sadness from Caden when he discusses Dante and his death. It becomes apparent that Dante, Caden and “B” grew up together and there was not a real sense of animosity between Caden and Dante at the very least.

When footage of a purported confrontation between Caden, Little Sid, and their respective groups is reviewed by Torres and Loker, they notice that the facial expressions indicate that the argument is fake and speculate that the rivalry was created to increase attention and record sales. Further analysis of the confrontation tape, and Dante’s facial expressions on it, leads Torres and Loker to conclude that Dante was in fact a homosexual. This revelation makes Torres and Loker suspect that the murderer is in fact someone within Little Sid’s group, or Little Sid himself, since the lyrics of Little Sid’s songs are profoundly homophobic. Torres and the assigned police detective then pay a visit to Little Sid to question him. Little Sid tells Torres that he knew Dante was a homosexual and that he didn’t have a problem with it because Dante kept it quiet. When asked by Torres about his homophobic song lyrics and their relationship to Dante, Little Sid states: “I got records to sell. So if I have to hate, I’m gonna hate, but I got no problem with Dante doing his little Brokeback thing.” Upon further questioning regarding his violent lifestyle, Little Sid again explains that the guns and violent accoutrements associated with his image are for the sake of image alone and that he is an entertainer, not a criminal. However, Little Sid does reveal that Dante was about to leave his group and join Caden’s group.

This bit of information causes Torres, Foster and Loker to re-evaluate Caden and his group members as suspects in Dante’s death. Torres pays another visit to Caden’s home, and is barely able to get past “B” in order to see Caden. During their conversation, Torres deduces that Caden and Dante were in a romantic relationship. Caden admits this and then goes on to lament the fact that he was unable to attend Dante’s funeral because of the image he was trying to maintain. Ultimately, both Torres and Caden focus on “B” and his involvement in the murder. It is then that “B” admits he killed Dante because he was afraid that Dante and Caden would be “outed,” thereby ending Caden’s career. “B” attempts to justify Dante’s murder by reminding Caden of their rough childhoods and how far they had come because the image that they had crafted, an image which would not allow Caden to be identified as homosexual. The story concludes with Torres and Caden watching as “B” is put in a police car.

In this plotline, more than unexpected twists and turns emerge. Strikingly, we see characters that are caught between the world in which they have chosen to live - and which has made them famous and wealthy – and the world with which they identify personally. These characters are stuck in the middle because their true identities are deemed to be incompatible with the personalities they must adopt in order to be successful in a culture that has helped them out of difficult personal backgrounds and circumstances. This storyline demonstrates the realities of people caught in social worlds and norms that cause them to strike out against things they personally embrace and to allow – and even condone – violence as part of these norms. It also shows how parallel norms can exist and yet only one norm is recognized by people who feel threatened at the idea of acting outside of the mainstream norms.

The story of Caden, Dante, Little Sid, and their relationship to homophobia is one example of these dual normative relationships. For Caden and Dante, they must deny their true sexual identities and emotions because these identities and emotions are not publicly acceptable in the world in which they live. The cost to each of them would have been their careers and wealth, and, in Dante’s case, the cost was his life. Little Sid finds himself in a position where he glorifies homophobia within the rap culture through his songs – although he himself is not homophobic – in order to be successful within the norms and rules of the culture itself. There is no attempt to change the culture because of the comforts and identity it affords. The same can be seen in Little Sid’s statement that he is an entertainer and not at heart violent, but that he sings about violence and exemplifies it in his personal image and conduct in order to fit into the predominant culture associated with the rap music industry.

Through Caden, Dante and Little Sid’s embracing of this duality of public and private, one can see how many philosophies and norms of hatred are perpetuated in written and unwritten laws by people who otherwise do not espouse these same philosophies and norms. One also sees the personal difficulties experienced by those who are stuck in the middle of accepted norms and their own identities, and, especially in the case of Little Sid’s adoption of a violent and homophobic persona over his naturally artistic and tolerant personality, we can see the justifications which are made in order to continue being stuck in the middle.

For information on Lie to Me, see http://www.fox.com/lietome/ .

Defeating Justice?

In a previous post, I discussed the concept of creating justice within the context of the television show Lie to Me. The particular storyline at issue was one in which a female member of an Army unit fabricated an allegation that she had been raped by her superior officer because, as the audience comes to find out, the superior officer had raped another member of the unit, who deserted rather than tell her story in what she viewed as a hostile legal and social environment. The argument made in my post was that the officer who fabricated the story did so in order to create a situation where justice would be done for the act of rape, even if the particular allegation was false. Ultimately, the true victim came forward to tell her story, the offending officer inadvertently admitted to the rape and was arrested, and it seemed that the social order within the military community was restored.

One of the two storylines in last week’s episode of Lie to Me, “Depraved Heart,” presented an entirely different concept of creating justice and the restoration of status quo to those harmed by the actions of a particular individual. At the beginning, the story seems to closely parallel the headline-grabbing facts of the Bernard Madoff case. Foster and Loker are hired by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to investigate an investment manager named Hollin and his business dealings because he has been found to have operated an investment swindle similar in size and effect to that in the Madoff case. Hollin himself is portrayed as an ill old man. He shared control of his investment firm with his daughter, Caroline, although Hollin maintains that he alone acted to swindle the firm’s clients and that Caroline had no knowledge of his actions. He also maintains that the missing money from his clients – many of whom gave him their life savings and are facing dire financial straits as a result of his actions – is gone.

Throughout the course of several interviews with Hollin and Caroline, Loker demonstrates a sense of disgust with both of them, and is extremely hostile to them, to the point where Foster has to conduct interviews without him. During one of these interviews, Hollin admits that the swindle was actually the result of his daughter’s actions and that he has decided to take the fall for her because she has a family and long life ahead of her, while he will certainly die soon. To Hollin, his daughter made a mistake and he is doing the noble thing that any parent would do in protecting her. He then admits to Foster that his clients’ money is not in fact gone. Hollin and Foster make a deal: he will help her and the SEC find and distribute his clients’ money and Foster will not say anything to the SEC about Caroline’s real involvement in the swindle. Foster accepts this deal because to her the best way to achieve justice for the victims of the swindle is to allow them to retrieve their money and be saved from economic ruin. When they return to the office, Foster tells Loker about her agreement with Hollin and Loker angrily objects, arguing that Caroline should be prosecuted because she broke the law. Foster reminds Loker that, if Caroline is prosecuted, the victims will not recover any money and will suffer far more than if Caroline is allowed to remain free. Loker does not seem to accept this idea but agrees to go along with it. Shortly after this conversation, Foster calls her contact at the SEC and is informed that her services are no longer needed because he has received information regarding Caroline’s culpability. When Foster asks about the source of this information, her contact is evasive and ends the conversation. Loker goes missing for a while and is confronted by Foster on his return. He tells her that he is happy that Caroline will be tried but that he did not turn her in. Foster reminds him that the affected investors will now remain without compensation because Caroline was implicated in the scandal and then lets Loker leave. Loker then takes Torres aside and admits to her that he reported Caroline to the SEC and then took a sedative so that he would not visibly react to Foster’s questions. Although Torres agrees not to turn Loker in, she reminds him that he will eventually be found out.

At first, Loker’s actions might not seem objectionable. After all, he did act in strict compliance with the law, turning in someone he knew to be guilty of a crime. From the legal systems’ perspective, Loker’s actions were appropriate – notwithstanding his insubordination at work. However, a deeper analysis of his actions calls into question which character was actually acting in the best interest of justice and the people whom the law is designed to serve.

Loker’s statements regarding Caroline and his overall actions echo the idea of retributive justice. Caroline committed an illegal act which harmed the investors in her father’s firm and should be punished as a result. His focus was solely on Caroline and the initial harm done by her actions. Foster’s agreement with Hollin and her defense of it to Loker, however, echo in restorative justice. While Foster is certainly aware that Caroline’s actions were illegal and wrong, she is also aware that the result of Caroline’s actions is more than the violation of a statute and the initial economic harm done to the community of investors who were defrauded by the swindle. Rather, Foster views justice as returning the presumptively lost funds to Hollin’s clients and restoring them to their prior state of financial stability. To Foster, justice in this instance is not in the trial of Caroline for her acts but in finding a way to mitigate the impact of Caroline’s acts on those who were most harmed by them. Examined at this level, Foster’s vision of restorative justice as appropriate in this case is arguably more compelling, as it gets to the heart of the truly horrific element of the crimes at issue – the loss of investors’ life savings through no fault of their own. In the agreement between Foster and Hollin, the investors are spared financial ruin and Hollin and Caroline are left to resolve their differences as to Caroline’s conduct as an internal, family matter. Thus, the investors who were harmed are made whole and the family in which the crimes occurred is left to decide on its own method of sanction and/or forgiveness. This episode of Lie to Me demonstrates that there are times when it is possible for law to defeat justice, depending on the vision used to define justice itself.


Information on Lie to Me can be found at http://www.fox.com/lietome/ .