As said on my previous post, the lack of good opportunities during steam summer sale (Bioshock Infinite: sale of the day, then two days later flash sale, etc, the damn thing is always at -50%, no more no less) invites to look elsewhere for some casual fun. Hence Rectify. Yeah, that sounds very wrong, but it’s not.
Rectify is actually a TV series not fun at all. Here’s the pitch: a guy convicted to capitol punishment for rape and murder get out of the death row, after almost 20 years, because of a new DNA evidence that implies a new trial.
The first thing I like in this series is the fact they, during the whole first season (that is actually only 6 episodes of 40 minutes long), avoided any debate about the legitimacy of death penalty. I’m not saying that’s not a valid subject of argument but, then, the characters would be some kind of pawns in a theoretical debate about life and death, justice, (un)necessary means to protect society, etc – that would be a very different thing.
Here, you have no overly stupid character. Most of them are flawed somehow, but they all makes sense: even the brother-in-law of Daniel Holden, the main character (ie the guy that got out of death row but that is still suspected to have been involved in the crime for which is was previously convicted), brother-in-law because his own father married the mother of Daniel Holden, despite the fact that the return of Daniel is obviously bad for his position in the Holden family local business and despite the fact that his wife seems into Daniel in suspicious ways; even the leftie sister of Daniel Holden that devoted so much time to the cause of his brother Daniel not to be overwhelmed by feelings; even the current state senator that was prosecutor during Daniel trial, that still believes Daniel guilty and have anyway political reasons to do so.
The issue of the innocence of Daniel Holden is blurry. Without any spoiler, I can tell you already that you won’t have any definitive answer during the whole first season. Obviously, you don’t get a jury from a modern criminal justice to convict someone without any serious ground. So if new evidence comes up, it may, like in this case, asks for a retrial, but it does not wipe the slate clean. For instance, it does not discard the fact that Daniel Holden confessed. It does not discard the fact that Daniel Holden is not vocal about his innocence – in most erronous conviction, the behavior of the wrongly convicted guy is part of the issue. San Quentin, what good do you think you do?