Analysis Of The Movie A Time To Kill

1065 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Crime and society

A Time to Kill movie is a legal thriller that take place in Canton, Mississippi where a ten-year-old African-American girl named Tonya Hailey is brutally raped, beaten and left to die in a creek by two intoxicated white racist rednecks – James “Pete” Willard and Billy Ray Cobb. Soon after Tonya is found and rushed into hospital, police officers arrested Willard and Cobb at the roadside bar. Tonya’s father, Carl Lee Hailey started to think about justice and remembered a similar case when four white men raped an African-American girl and got acquitted. He consulted with Jake Brigance, a liberal white attorney on weather if he can get acquitted if he kill two criminals who raped and nearly killed his daughter. Jake told Carl not to do anything …show more content…

Jake faced the dilemmas of giving up the case to keep family safe or continue representing Carl and risk everything. Once KKK began series of threats to Jake and anyone who support Carl, a very tough situation called for Jake. One of KKK members was caught in process of planting a bomb at Jake house. Jake had to send his family away to keep them out of trouble. Another KKK member burned a cross in his lawn. And next time his house was completely burned down almost killing his dog. Jake’s secretary was also attacked at her house and her husband got killed in process. Jake’s assistance, law student was also kidnapped and left to die. These threats forced Jake to give up the case. At these points, Jake had a choice to give up. However, he continued to defend Carl by putting everything and every associates at risk. His guilt of failure to stop Carl from committing murder impacted the decisions throughout the movie. If I was in Jake’s position in this movie, I would have given up. Because, I know someone should not get away from killing two people and injuring a police officer. He should be punished. If Carl is acquitted from charges, it would courage others to take the law in their own hands …show more content…

The Jury encountered the hardest decisions in the movie. All white jury was challenged in deciding whether the black man Carl who killed two white rapists was innocent or guilty. In the beginning of trial, as jury members voted each night at the restaurant, the decisions were clear on vengeance of Carl. Jake, the attorney tried to argue not guilty by Carl’s insanity in the heat of the moment. But, everyone knew it was nothing more than revenge. And from the side of law, it was wrong to take the justice in one’s own hands. But from the moral point of view, most people would have done what Carl did in respond to two rapists. Therefore, Jake concentrated on moral presentation in the closing arguments. He asked everyone in court room to imagine how they would respond if two men committed same crime to their own children. After that, the jury was emotionally effected by moral presentation. They agreed on Carl’s moment of insanity and cleared him of the charges. If I was in position to decide on punishment of Carl, I would have decide on guilty of the man murdering two people. One cannot take the justice on his hands. No one should be above the law, even the member of the

Show More
Related

  • Justice was Served in the Film Twelve Angry Men

    386 Words  | 1 Pages

    The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Jury System In 12 Angry Men By Sidney Lumet

    1175 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the strengths the movie has been the filming itself. There were barely any cuts in the movie and it was mostly shot in one scene so it made you feel that you were part of the scene. Another strength in the movie was the anonymity that was given to the jurors. This help me realise that these were just the “general public” and that there are many jury’s that are exactly or similar to this. Another strength that the movie showed was that it helped me realise the potential flaw in our justice system. While the accused is still given a right to a fair trial, when you are in a society where prejudice against minorities is considered a norm, it becomes hard looking at things fairly not because you don’t want to but because most of the society is already doing it. For example, in the movie most of the jurors were quick to accuse the boy guilty without deliberation. Another strength is how this movie showed how influential we are to each other. For example, the group dynamic of economic status was big because while the people on the higher economic status looked at the boy with more prejudice, one of the jurors who was

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In Twelve Angry Men

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its

    Read More

  • Research on Jury Bias

    1339 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion, we have seen that the race of the victim and the emotionality of the victim impact statements highly affects the jury’s empathy and therefore might influence their decision making. Understanding the interaction between the racial in-group/out-group and empathy may allow defense attorneys to lead jurors for harsher punishments for out-group racial groups and more lenient punishments for in-groups by playing on juror empathy and thus putting emotions before law and reason. Consequently, in any capital punishment case, race of the victim and race of the jury, could be the difference between life and death for a defendant and therefore needs to be studied further.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    Read More

  • To Kill a Mockingbird vs. A Time to Kill

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... the defendants had to deal with a higher human authority, the judge and jury of their area. In To Kill A Mockingbird Tom Robinson had to deal with an alleged rape, and no matter what the evidence said, or how hard his lawyer worked, he was convicted and later died. Tom was falsely accused, and his death was untimely and could have been avoided. But he accepted his fate calmly, as if he knew no matter what he would be convicted. The defendant in A Time To Kill, Carl Lee was accused of murder of the two men who raped his daughter. Carl was found not guilty, even though he did kill those men, and later on in life will have to deal with his actions. Both men had to deal with what the court brought against them, and they both did. Carl and Tom dealt with multiple issues, but the prejudices of their race, and the time they were tried ultimately determined their fates.

    Read More

  • A Member of the Jury in To Kill a Mockingbird

    657 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jury’s decision, however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color rather than actual evidence from the case.

    Read More

  • To Kill a Mockingbird and A Time to Kill: Similarities and Differences

    824 Words  | 2 Pages

    A Time to Kill is a story based primarily on justice. The story is based around the trial of a black man named Carl Lee Hailey, who is accused of murdering two unarmed white men in the middle of a courthouse. To Kill a Mockingbird is a story about many themes including a child's innocent perception of the world, a man's shame and the lengths to which he will go to regain his pride, and at the root of it all is a matter of justice. To Kill a Mockingbird features a trial in which a black man named Tom Robinson is accused of raping and beating a white woman. The main connection between the stories is a matter of racial prejudice. Neither of these trials would have even occ...

    Read More

  • The Rodney King Trial

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Bigger Thomas Trial

    1036 Words  | 3 Pages

    This can be exemplified by the fate suffered by the Scottsboro boys after they were accused of raping two white women. Although there was no evidence to prove their guilt, the all-white juries in their trials still found them guilty and sentenced them to life in prison (Pettengill, 10-5-2015). This unjust approach towards African Americans is portrayed in Bigger’s trial and is highlighted by Max’s words “And not only is this man a criminal, but a black criminal. And as such, he comes into court under handicap, notwithstanding our pretensions that all are equal before the law” (Wright, 1518). The trial is not truly representative of justice, but just a show for the public, and allowing an all-white jury to decide on Bigger’s fate is unfair because their minds are already conditioned by the press of the nation which has already reached a decision as to his guilt. Using Bessie’s body, not as real evidence, but to incite anger in the jurors and to make them see Bigger as a true criminal and sway their decision into an affirmative guilty decision shows how once again, a black body is being exploited by whites to uphold their prejudiced views of African Americans.

    Read More

  • Stereotype

    741 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...y’re dumb. Here is a quote from Mr. Michie before the trial was, “One of the things I’d tried to impress upon the kids throughout the year was the importance of speaking up intelligently about matters that concerned them.” (P.8). What he did to get rid of the thoughts was a court trial, to get everyone involved with the situations; he wanted his students to voiced their opinions about the cased that they felt strongly toward.

    Read More

  • Time To Kill: Movie Analysis: A Time To Kill

    1171 Words  | 3 Pages

    For my movie analysis I selected the 1996 film, A Time to Kill. For the next four pages I will answer the following questions, What feelings did the movie evoke?, What surprised you?, What made you mad?, How much were you aware of the problem presented in this movie before you watched this movie?, How does this movie relate to your life?,

    Read More

More about Analysis Of The Movie A Time To Kill

Open Document