After completing the series I was struck by a topic which wasn't roundly covered or at least summarized as I saw it, from the time of the first accusation in 1985 it is the state's directive to take away the liberty of the accused and slowly ration it back to him in the guise of fairness. As they decide that the testimony of his family is irrelevant, ignore evidence that would clear him, dismiss his appeals, stall his exoneration, and finally free him they act as though it is only through their own benevolence that he is allowed to exist as a free man. As the cycle repeats for the TH case the attitude emerges that they were right to incarcerate him the first time and in the judges sentencing remarks he distinctly gives the impression that depriving Avery of his freedom is in everyone's best interest. That outlook is even more apparent in Brandon's case as they take a boy who was only tangentially involved with the crime, stick him in the middle of it, threaten him with life imprisonment, and then act as though their plea deal of 20 years is merciful. After seeing reputations destroyed, years taken away, restitution withheld, and marriages torn apart it's sobering at the end of it all to see how happy his family and girlfriend are just to have him moved to a closer facility where he can have physical contact with them, the table scraps of a life which they have to accept at the largess of a system that does not care for them at all.