Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Violence films
I watched 12 Angry Men as my first movie, and even though it was made long time ago before I was born it still excites me how something so simple for everyone else could be easily changed. The film is based on the 1950’s and it’s about a trial of a young American (18 years) who is accused for stabbing his father and eventually killing him. From this, a group of 12 men is delegated as jury in this case for them to confirm or reject the decision. The trial revolved around the story of two key witnesses: an old man of about 75 years who was a neighbor of the scene, living in the lower apartment, and suffering from mobility impairment; and a woman about 45 years old who lived just in front of the youth department, the other side of the tracks, and suffered from impaired …show more content…
vision. This is a clear example of procedural law because the arrest was made on probable cause and the young man was arraigned on the charges. In this special case we cannot discuss the defendant’s point of view because all we can see us how the 12 members of the jury start changing their minds one by one until eventually they all agree the accused is in fact innocent of all charges. The key points of this case were as follow: 1.
The accused, according to own statements, admits to leaving his house at 8:00 pm, after being beaten several times by his father.
2. After having left his house he went straight to the pawn shop which was 2 blocks from his house, where he bought a switchblade. According to the seller, it was not an ordinary knife; having a handle and a blade cut unusual. Same store owner said it was the only knife that had on sale.
3. After that, the young man met his friends in front of the usual canteen around 8:45 PM. He stayed there for a while and talked to his friends for an hour, until 9:45 pm. During the meeting he showed the knife to his
…show more content…
friends. 4. He returned home at about 10:00 pm (point at which the history of the prosecutor and the accused are no longer coincident). The accused states that he went to the movies by himself at about 11:30 pm, and returned home at 3:10 am, where he found his father dead. At that time and place the police proceeded to arrest him. 5. According to the accused, he dropped the knife through a hole in his pocket as he went to the movies, between 11:30 pm and 3:10 am, and he never saw it again. 6.
The knife was identified by the court as the same one used in the murder. It lacked fingerprints.
7. According to the version of the prosecutor, the young man had never been to the movies, because the young man did not remember the name of the movie.
8. The prosecutor insisted that the accused had come back straight from the bar to his apartment where he discussed with his father up to the point in which he killed him, leaving the knife in the crime scene, he flee the crime scene and came back hours later just to get the knife and that’s when he got
arrested. The second movie I watched for this assignment was The Social Network which narrates the life of Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of the well know Facebook. The big issue about this movie is when Mark Zuckerberg is sued by his ex-friend Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twin brothers. The brothers claim that Mark Zuckerberg stole their idea to create Facebook. After a lengthy trial, the Winklevoss and their partner Divya Narendra reached an agreement with Zuckerberg and received US $ 65 million divided in cash and stock. The other sue that Mark Zuckerberg encounters is the one by his friend and current co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin. Saverin met Mark Zuckerberg during his first year of college. Later, together they founded the social network Facebook assuming the roles of CFO and business manager. While he was in New York and because of internal differences of opinion and conflicts with Zuckerberg, Saverin walked away from what was called “Thefacebook “at that time, a growing company based in Silicon Valley. After foreign investors Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, and Sean Parker, co-creator of Napster took control of the business and financial support as CEO Zuckerberg, Saverin’s role was limited and their influence evaporated. Saverin sued Facebook and Zuckerberg in April 2005, after it reduced Saverin participation from 34 % to 0.03 % .4 Saverin won the case, the court granting 7% of property and the right to be mentioned as co-founder of Facebook.
The knife that served as the murder weapon was sourced from the kitchen. Their bodies, which were burnt quite badly, were found in their bedroom, which was upstairs. This crime scene was uncovered by fire officers who responded to a 000 call by a neighbor at approximately 3:34am, after Jeffrey had told him his parents and his brother were dead. At this point, Jeffrey creates his alibi that his brother Christopher is responsible for the murder of their parents and setting the bodies on fire, but it was he who murdered
In the Forensic case #356228, the skeletal remains found in January 2009 in a deer hunting area were those of a black male greater than the age of 45. The jury felt based upon the evidence provided that the skeletal remains found were that of Robert Rutherford and the accused, John O’Hara was guilty as charged. The incidence was speculated to have happened around four years ago, when the defendant and the victim were in a quarrel over the hunting area. Due to the fact that John O’Hara went to confession more in February 2009, indicated that he had a guilty conscience. John O’Hara was known for hunting in the area and based on the evidence provided the jury speculated that he shot Robert Rutherford possibly from his deer stand, resulting in his death.
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Facts: Richard Gordon escaped from jail, passed three states in the car that they had already stolen; they had two guns in possession. The car that they had started to show engine problems, so they went and looked for another vehicle; they found the Chevelle. Richard Gordon was charged with having committed the crime of "Armed Robbery" He was also accused, with intention to kill, assaulted a police officer. Richard Gordon pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was found guilty of "Armed Robbery."
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
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.
Dictating a man's future would seem enough be a difficult task for anyone, for it is whether this man ends up with a lifetime in prison or he is given the privilege to walk the streets. Deciphering facts from fictitious tales, and putting everything up for questioning. Such an experience was only granted to men in the 1950’s. A time when race and gender were gradually beginning to not be definitive of an individual's social class. Although, it may seem like an incredibly undesirable task, sitting in hot New York courthouse with eleven other men is needed for justice to rightfully be served. Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.
As the prosecutor creates a strong argument that makes it sound like he is guilty of this murder. With the strong argument toward Steve the attorneys also have a stronger argument towards the state. As Steve takes the witness stand he gives a look toward the jury that looks suspicious. Other criminals were to take the witness stand but they only did it because it meant that they could get a shorter sentence time. After the trial Steve was found not guilty to the jury and he could go
knife as his late arriving parents stare at him motionless neglecting the fact that their daughter is
I started packing up all the surprises I need for this party, a blade serrated near the handle and a deadly sharp curve at the tip, a shiny polished meat clever, a Bayonet knife, a dagger-like steel weapon that is attached to the muzzle of a gun and used for stabbing or slashing in hand to hand combat, a Gut knife, a Huntsman knife, a Bowie knife, a flip knife, an edged thin blade and lastly, my favorite, the Karambit knife. The knife was sharp and keen. It had wanted to murder since it's first design. It had a large steel serrated blade with a black handle. I grabbed all my knives into my rucksack. I also don't want to forget my lucky strawberry flavored lollipop.
...Once more the odious courtesies began, the first handed the knife across K. to the second, who handed it across K. back again to the first. K. now perceived clearly that he was supposed to seize the knife himself, as it traveled from hand to hand above him, and plunge it into his own breast. But he did not do so, he merely turned his head, which was still free to move, and gazed around him. He could not completely rise to the occasion, he could not relieve the officials of all their tasks; the responsibility for this last failure of his lay with him who had not left him the remnant of strength necessary for the deed....
Wilfred a retired soldier saw perpetrators during the perpetrators were changing cars and informed to the police. In here I will clarify each potential evidences of the crime and explain of the application of the identified forensic procedure to the facts of the case. One of the perpetrators cuts his hand when trying to drag of the witness in the crime scene.