For me, the entire movie was extremely enlightening and informative. One of the stories that struck me was that of the man who was currently in court for drug violations, but also came from a long line of men in his family with a history of drugs. The interview sections with his father simply demonstrate that minority families with histories of drug dealings can easily end up in an endless cycle of incarceration. Although I found all the stories very touching, I have to honestly say that there weren't any characters that I necessarily felt very close to, but I enjoyed Nanny's story and found it interesting how the narrator's family chooses to "help" Nanny out, ending up having a negative impact on her own family. It was very sad to see that he was just trying to do something to help his family financially, but in the end he ended up making things worse. If anything, I think this movie completely changes viewers' perception of the "good guys" versus the "bad guys" because it shows the "good" and the "bad" to each of the types of people you might have preconceived notions about. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For example, you might go into the movie thinking that all the people in prison for drugs are "bad guys," but you'll learn how ridiculous their sentence is and the consequences they face simply for interacting with drugs. In contrast, you might see judges or police officers as “the good guys,” meting out justice for the good of the country, but the film also shows the darker sides of these roles. We observe a judge who must follow the laws of congress and morally involuntarily condemn a man to at least twenty years in prison. We see and hear about police officers who profit from drug seizures more than those who solve murder cases. Mentioning the Iowa judge again, his story surprised me a little. At first, it seems like this judge is happily handing out prison sentences left and right; then we listen to an interview with him and it is revealed that, although he does not think the timing of the sentence was right, the law of Congress prevails over his own judgment. I would say the biggest story that surprised me was more of a reflection on the story in the middle of the film. Extremely interesting was the part of the film in which it is explained how over time society (the predominantly white part of society) has attributed certain drugs to minority groups to prevent them from "threatening" whites; How drugs were used as a social weapon against minorities. I will definitely say that I think conflict theory best describes the criminal justice system and the war on drugs. According to Boundless, conflict theory is defined as “society is not best understood as a complex system seeking balance but rather as competition. Society is made up of individuals who compete for limited resources. Wider social structures and organizations reflect competition for resources in their inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society. (Boundless, 2016). Based on this definition, it seems quite similar to how I view the war on drugs, as opposed to structural functionalism “a sociological theory that originally attempted to explain social institutions as collective means of satisfying individual biological needs (originally just functionalism)”. (Boundless, 2016). I don't think the criminal justice system either.