In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed. First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this …show more content…
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
The importance of a jury makes it necessary to understand its function, strengths and weaknesses in a criminal matter. Both the state and federal courts follow the same procedure in impaneling the jury. Most states do not accord minors the right to jury trial in court proceedings related to juvenile delinquency. The jury essentially hears the evidence presented against the defendant and potential defenses. It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship. They may also decide questions that involve crimes for which a trial judge fine, place on probation, or confine defendant to prison. Nevertheless, a jury does not play any role in sentencing, but instead leaves it upon the trial judge to make this decision following all the submissions made by both sides. Overall, the court system must rely upon a jury for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of
A jury system inquires fairness in a court case. A jury is “A group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser” (Law.com Legal Dictionary 2014). As a jury member they are obligated to tell the truth and give an honest response. The jury system randomly selects 12 people for each court case. Once you are 18 years old and registered you can be selected for jury service. There are two categories of people who cannot serve and that is people who are excluded from the jury roll and who are exempt from jury service (NSW Government 2014). Those who are excluded are people with criminal convictions and who hold high positions in public office. Those exempted are due to their employment (NSW Government 2014). As a jury member you are expected to dress appropriately, be honest, and give fu...
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
Famous writer Robert Frost stated, “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” While selecting a competent lawyer is important, in the court of law, the process of jury selection is easily one of the most important factors. While many elements are considered during the process of jury selection, the most valuable is the use of psychology. Psychology is used by lawyers during the process of jury selection to choose the best possible jurors to decide the fate of their client. Psychology can be used in many different ways such as voir dire, persuasion, and research.
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
We are very fortunate to live in a country where democracy is how we conduct our way of life. One of the great advantages of living here is that if someone is convicted of a crime that innocent until proven guilty. The hope and mission of our judicial system is to correctly convict the people who actually committed the crime. To prove their guilt while also making sure we are not convicting an innocent person. However, our system is not perfect and there are some chinks in our armor. Unfortunately, since jurors are just people and not computers or machines mistakes can be made. When putting your life in another person’s hands such as a juror you hope for the best, but that is not always enough. Sometimes there are certain variables, which
In the United States, an accused person is believed to be innocent until proven guilty. The process to make a trial fair has been guaranteed to citizens of the United States through the constitution. Included in the process as a guaranteed right are jurors. A jury is a group of people, from the community, selected by the prosecution and the defense counsel, tasked with deciding if the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Weigman, 2011). To make this decision, the pool of jurors will listen to opening statements, listen to witness statements, look at the evidence and hear closing arguments. The jurors will then be given instructions that include the explanation of their role, the law and what proof beyond reasonable doubt means. The
In the movie Runaway Jury the attorneys go beyond the bounds of decency to collect information about potential jurors for a murder case. The typical process that the United States follows when finding potential jurors is called Vior Dire. Through this process attorneys can select or reject jurors depending on the answers to their Vior Dire, or their questionnaire. The questionnaire generally asks about backgrounds and biases the juror may have. I believe this is the fair way to pick and chose jurors and the way Rankin Fitch went about it is irresponsible and invasive. Despite the questionnaires filled out, Fitch, bugged the defense attorney with a microphone to ensure he would pick a jury that would side with him and his team. I find this to be extremely unlawful and unethical. When picking a jury the objective is to get a bias subject that can listen to both sides. To select individuals that seem unbiased already defeats the purpose of the jury as a whole. Ultimately, I think that a jury should be selected just using the Vior Dire process. It allows for an unbiased choice and any further digging or research on a person seems to be overdoing a simple process. If an attorney
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.