Nature of the Crime

The Plot: After decades in prison, three men navigate the complex bureaucracy of the parole system and deal with its psychological toll.

HBO -- or should I say MAX (worst name change ever since Cinemax was the poor sister channel) -- has clearly lost its way.

So many of the docs its now producing are nothing less than propaganda pieces, assembled in a way to promote a false narrative. This one is no exception.

A simple Google search will clue you into the true facts in each of the three cases and none of those facts are examined in this documentary.

I was thoroughly bored through the entire thing.

As "Nature of the Crime" (2024 release; 93 min) opens, we are at the "Elmira Correctional Facility, New York", and we are introduced to inmate Todd Scott, now 54, who 35 years ago, at age 19, participated in the murder of a New York police officer. He was sentenced to "25 to life", and he is preparing for an upcoming parole hearing. At this point we are less than 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from documentarians Ricki Stern and Jess Sweet ("Family Secrets: The Disappearance of Alissa Turney"). Here the state of parole in New York state: can a person who commits murder at a young age (here: once who was 19, and one who was 14) rehabilitate to the point of where parole is warranted. Or put differently: when is a person worthy of a second chance. The film contrasts how New York state deals with it, and how its neighboring state Connecticut deals with it. (Please note that it is obvious that the other reviewer calling this "Not Very Good" and rating this 1/10, has not seen the documentary and simply makes a general comment bow (s)he dislikes "so many" HBO documentaries.)

"Nature of the Crime" recently started airing on HBO and is now streaming on Max, where I saw it the other night. If you have an interest in in judicial matters, I'd readily suggest you check it out and draw your own conclusion.

This documentary shows the prisoner's point of view and tries to influence the viewer to be more sympathetic to their release. While it did do that it didn't present the other side, the victim's family.

I think in order to make a balanced documentary it should present more perspectives.

I looked up the details of Chad Campbell's offense and it was really shocking. He committed seriously gruesome premeditated murders and he sexually violated the girl as well. I find it hard to believe that there isn't something a lot more sinister about him than can be just explained away by a juvenile brain and an unhappy childhood.

This film also doesn't include any statistics such as 'what percentage of young offenders of serious violent crimes commit another serious crime after release?' Does the length of time in prison appear to have any affect on a successful outcome or not?

What do psychologists or scientists say about the brain in relation to why people commit crimes? Are there genetic or biological factors besides a youthful undeveloped brain to be considered? Are environmental factors considered?

Is it worth the risk to society to free someone that has committed heinous murders?

How much influence does politics play in making the decision of releasing an offender or not?

I think this documentary missed out on an opportunity to really dive deeper into this subject.

I'm glad I'm one who doesn't have to decide other people's fate in life.