TV overdose: Injustice

As an overwrought and emotionally drained law student, the last thing you'd expect me to voluntarily watch is a legal drama. But it's almost a case of Stockholm syndrome, I have learned to love my oppressor, I just can't get enough of them. So when I was the advert for injustice, I knew I'd be spending every night this week, 9pm-10, watching this show. I have no intention of becoming a criminal barrister, but if I could be I would, it's tres difficult to make it as a barrister. even more so than a solicitor, and this show also highlighted the fact I probably couldn't cope with the psychological pressure that comes with being a criminal lawyer. Nevertheless, I find such shows fascinating and always scan the script for legal technicalities that the script writers have got wrong, allowing me to smugly tell my family "well under the Police and Criminal evidence act 1984 that wouldn't be allowed". But they got it all pretty spot on. 

Tasty Travers and Wanker Wenborn.

The show was based on a book by Anthony Horowitz (forgive me if this is the incorrect spelling) as a literature snob who favours the old classics over modern texts (George Orwell and Harper Lee are about a current as I get) I am not familiar with the novel, but I hear the tv producers toned down the action and explored the psychological aspects much more in depth, which is quite unheard of for tv drama, normally they Hollywood-ize perfectly decent books with excessive explosions and sex scenes.  

Basic plot line: Extremely competent and rather tasty defence Barrister, Travers, will only defend those he believes to be innocent, but when one client is acquitted and subsequently admits his guilt, Travers has mental breakdown and refuses to take on any more murder cases. But when he spots the defendant walking freely around a train station, he decides to correct the mistake he made and shoots him. Also an old university friend asks him to defend him on a murder trial, promising to be innocent despite copious amounts of incriminating evidence against him. Travers reluctantly takes on the case, and looks for evidence to acquit his old friend. Meanwhile, a Cop with a incessant hatred for lawyers, Wenborn is given the case of Spaull (the guy Travers killed- hope your following me) he seems to be close on the heels and claims he is ready to make an arrest. However his fatal flaw- besides being an abusive husband- is his inability to do any paperwork and reluctance to keep fellow co workers in the loop. Therefore when his poor wife in accidentally kills him in self defence (he was about to beat the living crap out of her) all his progress on Travers dies with him. Back to Travers then, he successfully gets his friend found "not guilty" of murdering his mistress, but soon after realises that he too had been lying to him and not only is his old friend a murderer, but also into a bit of child porn. So Traver's takes matters into his own hands, and corrects the injustice he has causes by shooting Martin's brains out. We finish with him about to take on another murder case and him asking the defendant not to lie to him and tell him "did you do it". There is a sub plot involving his wife who works as a teacher in a young offenders institutes who finds a promising student who's been writing a novel, but he hangs himself so there's not much more to add to that. 

The show explores perception of good vs evil, one of the many morally contentious questions which arise is "is it murder to kill a murderer?". Travers- the barrister, portrays all the qualities of a good moral entity, hardworking, a faithful and loving husband, a kind father, trusting and kind, yet he has committed murder, whereas the police man Wenborn demonstrates such ugly traits, violent towards his wife, unfaithful, discriminatory and vile towards collegues, and citizens, yet he has not committed such a heinous crime. It makes you question- who is the good man? Most viewers will take Travers side, arguably the people he killed deserved it, he was only correcting the mistakes of the English criminal justice system. However, we should remember it was Travers who'd gotten these people off in the first place. It was his wrongdoing in the first place. Is it wrong of him to expect his clients to be innocent? We should remember that in England, there is no death penalty, he's going beyong the realm of the penal system by killing his deceitful clients, are they getting what they really deserve or is he going too far beyond his authority? Because of Wenborn's death, Travers clients who are found not guilty will have their freedom restricted far more greatly than if they'd be found guilty. They are probably better off going to prison if they intend to lie to him. Is it justice? To kill those who have killed? Or if a jury has found someone not guilty, should we respect that, even if we know better? Even as I typed that it seems nonsensical to me- Travers is following the old maxim of "an eye for an eye". Which most people in this country to some extent agree with. But most people will probably think Traver's shouldn't be such a damn good lawyer in the first place if he can't handle the consequences of his job. 

The show was a slow burner on monday. It wasn't until 45 minutes had passed that I suddenly was really drawn in. As the show went on I began to think it was becoming predictable, in a pleasant way, i thought it was my legally inclined mind figuring out the shows plot, but come friday my mum outwitted my and predicted the client would be guilty, neither of us were expecting Wenborn's death nor were we expecting the child pornography story line.  It was compelling viewing and I will be buying it on DVD. Best tv I have seen in a long long time.