> Was what happened to the Central Park Five completely wrong, or simply incomplete? I read Sarah Burns’ book, The Central Park Five, expecting a plaintiff’s brief, and it is that—she was an intern for lawyers pursuing civil claims on their behalf as a college student, in the summer of 2003. She believes passionately that the Five hadn’t raped the jogger; she is more circumspect in her treatment of their other felonies: “At some point, the metal bar from Korey’s house that Yusef had carried in the park had been used to beat Laughlin.” She is enthusiastic in her support of Ryan’s assessment, but doesn’t include this quote on their conduct that night: “The other crimes committed on April 19 were grave and inexcusable—unprovoked attacks on strangers, apparently undertaken for the fun of it, which left some terrorized, two knocked into unconsciousness, and one seriously injured.”
Obviously that doesn’t justify the false conviction or some of the associated tactics. But it is important context. As we saw with “Making of a Murderer,” these investigations are complex. It’s easy to portray a one-sided narrative that obscures how the justice system can be led to the wrong result, to make it seem like this black box that capriciously chews up and spits out totally random people. Usually, when it happens, there is an explanation. The explanation might involve racism, or human error, or misconduct. But it’s almost never totally the result of those things.