I feel like we’re overextending the meaning of The Thin Blue Line a bit too much. The indisputible fact is that someone committed the murder, and I don’t believe that the empirical investigation of a murder lends itself to some grandiose understanding of universal “truth”. As some people alluded to in class, I believe that this film was more about corruption and perversion of the justice system. It isn’t disputing the “truth” that a murder actually happened and that someone actually committed it.
On a somewhat related note, has anyone seen “Capturing the Friedmans”? It is really interesting along the same lines as The Thin Blue Line, questioning the validity of American justice and whatnot. Here’s the plot synopsis from IMDB:
“In the 80’s, in the upper-middleclass district of Great Neck, the awarded Professor Arnold Friedman is arrested for possession of some magazines of child pornography. A further investigation of the police discloses that apparently Arnold and his eighteen years old son Jesse molested his young students during their private computer class. Their Jewish family tears apart with the situation and the sentences of Arnold and Jesse.”
I think Capturing the Friedman’s is more of a questioning of universal truth, whereas The Thin Blue Line was created for a more practical purpose. For anyone who hasn’t seen Friedmans, I’d advise you to check it out if you liked The Thin Blue Line.