The documentary had a lot of key components that effectively conveyed Jarecki’s argument, without him having to explicitly relay that viewpoint to us, the viewers. The most effective component I thought was the interviews, closely followed by the brief history lesson using old film and Jarecki’s narration. Using these tools, Jarecki’s position on the War on Drugs was …show more content…
Jarecki interviewed an inmate who had a conspiracy charge against him, his name was Anthony Johnson. Anthony Johnson was arrested during a drug raid in Vermont and his charge requires him looking at a jail sentence ranging from five to forty years for a drug called crack. Another inmate we met, named Kevin Hart was given a life sentence with no chance of parole for three ounces of methamphetamine. Kevin claims the amount he is incarcerated for could fit in a small envelope. These two interviews helped me come to the realization that the length of these sentences are at the very least unnecessary, leading me to agree with Jarecki. Someone in disagreement with Jarecki and his interviewees would say that the sentences are the law and should be good enough disincentives to not commit the crime. Which isn’t wrong, they have a very valid point, the law is the law, but when learning about punishment and deterrence models the problem lies in the different ways people value the