Netflix's 'Making a Murderer' shows value of Arts degree

You got 'x amount of' points and you're studying arts?! What do you want to work as? What use is that?

Arts and Humanities, the much maligned final refuge of those who lack direction or sufficient points in the Leaving Cert to do anything 'employable', has once again proved its worth. Unfortunately, it was through conspicuous absence of the skills this field teaches that the point was driven home.

The trial of Steven Avery, viewable by the general public through the Netflix Documentary series Making a Murderer, has shown the importance of the old abbreviation 'ATQ': Answer the F****** question. The jury in the trial were charged with a simple task: if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this Wisconsin man murdered a young woman by the name of Teresa Halbach, deliver a verdict of guilty.

A reasonable doubt.

Numerous questions abound over lack of DNA evidence, conflict of interests and reliability of witness statements, but citing these as the nadir of the entire saga is missing the forest for the trees. The issue of whether Steven Avery actually murdered Teresa Halbach should also be considered secondary to the real issue raised by the series.  Reasonable doubt was cast on the prosecution's arguments yet the jury convicted Avery regardless.

The terrifying implication is that the criminal justice system is broken. This is wrong. It is the education system that is broken. Had the jury functioned as it should have the prosecution's case would have been exposed as being as putrid and vacillating as prosecutor Ken Kratz's regrettably omnipresent jowls.

The Wisconsin school system has produced twelve adults seemingly unable to carry out the task every English teacher has ever set their student: answer the question you are asked.

This is where an education in liberal arts proves its value. The skills gained by studying the discipline who's main concern is theory and argument would have afforded the jury the ability they evidently lacked: identifying the criteria within which they were tasked with working.

A jury with even a rudimentary grasp of structured thinking would have used the following syllogism: A. The evidence presented at Steven Avery's trial was inconclusive and constituted a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. B. In a criminal trial a reasonable doubt requires that a defendant be found innocent of the crime of which they are accused. C. Therefore, Steven Avery is innocent.

So next time the question 'what use is an arts degree?' Is asked, think of Steven Avery.