As some of my regular readers probably already know, I do not have a television in my house. Some people wonder how I manage without one, but my family has no problem making do. If I feel the need for some entertainment, I can go to places like Hulu and watch a video on my computer. Therein lies the tale, as it was on Hulu that I found a new series called Harry’s Law. In short, it tells the story of Harriet Korn, a patent lawyer who has been fired and is finding a new calling in criminal law, practiced from an old shoe store in a very rough neighborhood. At first watch, I found the series to be entertaining, both in a serious and funny way, especially with Harry packing an older Smith & Wesson M19. As the season premier progressed through the story, it became quickly apparent that the show’s creator has an agenda and a story to tell. Just a hint, but I am fairly certain that the show isn’t going to be displaying much of a conservative point of view. Said creator is David E. Kelley and although I have no clue who the man is, he is apparently well known for giving his creations a liberal slant. Let me explain what I mean.
The first hint of a red flag came in one of the courtroom scenes, in which Harry was defending a young man who had already been in trouble for drugs. She was fighting to keep him out of prison and to keep him in school. During her argument, she managed to mention several things, among them the idea of legalizing drugs and that conservatives were the first ones to mention the idea. She also brought up that Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict who got off scot-free because of who he was. The final outcome of the case was that the young man was found guilty, but the judge suspended his sentence, as long as he fulfilled several requirements, two of which were getting a job and staying in school. While this may not appear to be all that radical to some conservatives, I suspected then that I knew where the show was headed.
The second installment of the series did nothing but confirm that suspicion. First, we have Harry’s young colleague, Adam Branch, who decides to defend a Chinese man and his daughter who own a dry cleaning shop. They were being sued because they had fired a female employee who decided to have a baby. They were following China’s one-baby policy and because the woman already had one baby, they let her go. Adam’s line of defense turned out to be a rather ludicrous attempt to actually defend China and it’s policy, saying they were doing more to curb the population of the Earth than any other country. That’s right, he was defending the totalitarian policies of a communist regime that is very oppressive to it’s people. The judge in the case actually decided that the defense had merits and referred it to the Ohio State Supreme Court for review. It is sure to be picked up in subsequent episodes.
Moving on to the case Harry worked on in the second episode, we meet Anna Nicholson, an elderly woman (89, I think) who is on trial for armed robbery. The case should have been fairly open and shut, with security camera footage showing her holding a revolver to a store clerk’s head and threatening to blow his head off if he didn’t give her the money from the register. I say should have been because it turned out to be anything but. Harry defended Mrs. Nicholson by putting her on the stand and allowing her to tell the story of how she had ran out of money and had to resort to begging from her neighbors. Also thrown in were how the government had bailed out Wall Street, with her asking where was her bailout. The woman defended her choice to rob the store, saying she chose it because the man was a drug dealer, etc. In her closing arguments, Harry appealed to the jury to find Anna Nicholson not guilty, because she was a victim of circumstances and it was the right thing to do. In real life, the case would have been a conviction by the jury, with the judge deciding what to do about a prison sentence for an 89-year-old woman. Needless to say, the jury found her innocent of all charges, despite the clear evidence.
For those of you who know how the law works, would it not be a complete and total travesty of justice if a real criminal case were to unfold in such a manner? Isn’t a jury supposed to decide the case based on the evidence, not on the emotions involved in the case? It appears to me that Harry’s law just took a shot at the idea of personal responsibility. As the DA pointed out in his closing arguments, Mrs. Nicholson made the choice to rob the store and no matter what her reasons were, armed robbery is still against the law. She should have been found guilty, but the liberal jury listened to a liberal lawyer and found her innocent.
I know this is all fictional and I actually found the show to be funny and entertaining, but it serves to make my case that the liberals do have an agenda and will go to any extremes to further that agenda. I do not begrudge David E. Kelley’s right to produce Harry’s Law in whatever creative fashion he so chooses, but he is clearly using this show to bash conservatives and to advance a very liberal way of thinking. To those of you who may not believe this, I say you should start paying attention. I believe that is something we should be well aware of and be ready to counter.