Discussion Guide

You can use this brief discussion guide when showing the film CRIME AFTER CRIME in educational settings and at any screening intended to raise community awareness of domestic violence, wrongful incarceration, and the workings of the American criminal justice system. (In educational settings, students may be asked to write short essays on one or more of these questions.) We encourage you to use these questions as a starting point, and to share your responses with us via our blog.

Before viewing the film, discuss or consider these questions:

Do you believe in the death penalty?  Is the death penalty ever misused?

The justice system in the US is often symbolized by large stone courthouses, such as The Supreme Court building in Washington DC.  Do you think that the workings of the justice system are also “etched in stone”?  Or is our justice system more fluid, something that evolves and changes as our society evolves and changes?

Do victims of domestic violence deserve any special consideration in court if they are accused of a crime against their abuser?  In other words, if someone was abused many times before committing a crime against an abuser, should the judge and jury review the evidence of abuse?  Or should that evidence be ignored if it did not occur on the same day as the crime?

What are some of the signs that might tell someone that a relationship could become violent?  What would you do if you noticed those signs in a relationship?

Is domestic violence a crime?  Why or why not?  (Discussion facilitators: be sure to point out that it is in fact a crime in all 50 states.)

After viewing the film, revisit the questions you discussed or considered before watching it.  Have your answers changed in any way?  If so, how?

If you had a friend whose boyfriend sometimes hit her, is there anything you would say or do about it?

Do you think that California’s law allowing incarcerated victims of domestic violence to ask the courts for a new hearing is a good idea?  Why or why not?

Do you think that our courts looked at evidence of domestic violence evidence differently 20, 30, or 40 years ago?  If so, how do you think it was different?

What do you think is important about Debbie Peagler’s story?  In what ways do you think it is unique?  In what ways do you think that it is not unique?

Do you have any ideas about how to reduce overcrowding in prisons?  If you have ideas, do you think that they can work to not only reduce prison overcrowding, but also to keep the public safe?