At the beginning of the movie, a young man is being tried in court for premeditated homicide. The judge states that this is the most serious charge tried in the criminal courts and that if the young man is found guilty, he will get the death penalty. The judge then sends the main characters, the jury on their way to decide the boys fate. As soon as the jury got into the room, they started their discussion by casting an unanimous vote. Everyone agrees that the boy is guilty except for jury eight. He states that the boy had a rough eighteen years of his life and that might have been a motive for him to kill his father. Jury eight also says he just doesn't want to send the boy to death without talking about the case. Jury ten says the boy is automatically guilty because he is from the slums and his type of people are susceptible to becoming criminals. Jury four goes on to explain how the boy did the murder because the boy stated that he went to the movies with his friends but …show more content…
when asked about what movie they watched, he couldn't answer. Jury four also says that the knife is unique and no one else could have the same kind. Jury eight proves him wrong by pulling out the same knife saying someone else could've done it. Jury eight asks everyone to make a secret ballot and he’ll abstain from doing it. If everyone votes guilty, they’ll wrap things up and go to the judge with a guilty verdict but someone changed their vote to not guilty. It turned out to be jury nine who changed his mind because he wants to hear more. Jury eight continues to make reasons why the boy can't be guilty. He says the old man that said he heard the body fall couldn't have heard it because the train going by would be too loud. Jury eleven second guesses his vote by questioning why the boy would go back to the apartment three hours later after the murder. The others state that the boy just wanted to go get his knife back but that didn't seem logical to the jury members that voted not guilty. For the third time, the jury members have another vote. Jury eleven joins the not guilty party. They then ask for the blueprints of the apartment. The old man's apartment was the exact same as the boys apartment. Jury nine tries to explain that an old man that limps cant walk forty feet in fifteen seconds. They reenact the scene and it turns out that it would have taken the old man forty-two seconds to get to his door from his bedroom. They have another vote and it turns out that six people vote guilty and the other six people vote not guilty. Jury ten suggests that they go to the judge and claim that they are a hung jury and jury seven agrees with him. Jury eight confronts jury four about the movie situation and asks him what was the last movie he watched.
Jury eight questioned him about the movie but jury four couldn't remember the stars in the film. That proves the boy could have been at the movies or have not. Jury one talks about the psychiatrist and how he said the boy had murdering thoughts but jury eleven counters his claim by saying everyone has murdering tendencies in their unconscious mind. The jury members then talk about the angle of the stab wound. Jury five thinks about it and says that the knife couldn't have been used like the way it says in the report. You could only use the knife by an underhand stab. Jury seven then out of nowhere changes his mind and says the boy isn't guilty because they aren't going anywhere with the argument and he just wants to go. Jury ten goes on a rant saying that the boys kind of people come to this country to take people's jobs and commit crimes. The rest tells him to stop talking and sit
down. After another vote, the jury talks about the women that claimed she saw the murder with her own eyes. Jury nine points out that the woman had the same marks on her nose as jury four. They conclude that she did have eyeglasses and she was just trying to look good at court. The jury also says that she couldn't have seen the murder because no one goes to bed with them on and since she said she glanced out the window, that wouldn't have been enough time to put them on. Jury ten changes his vote to not guilty because he just doesn't care anymore. Jury three is fed up with everyone because they won't look at the broad picture. He starts crying because no child should say “I'm going to kill you” to their father. He finally says the boy is not guilty and everyone else gets up to report to the judge. Jury ten kept his vote to guilty because with past experience, he knows that the boys people are just bad and they deserve to be in jail. Jury three had a connection to the case because it may have reminded him of his son. Jury five grew up in the slums and he was not a criminal which according to jury ten, you are one. He also knew how a pocket knife worked. I learned many things from this film on how a jury works. I know that they go back and forth trying to get their point across the table. It was the first time i’ve heard of a hung jury which means the jury couldn't make a final decision. I thought 12 Angry Men was a great movie. I liked how each character had a different perspective when they tried to defend their reasoning.
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
Is the jury system a good idea? Many will say yes, and a few like myself will say no. At first I believed, yes a jury system is a good idea, it’s lasted us this long so why should there be any changes to it. Then I read this DBQ and it changed my mind. So first of all, most jurors are non-reliable, a lot of them can be biased and not even care or pay attention to the case they are assigned to, and lastly we have living proof on why we should get rid of a jury, and that is the Casey Anthony case.
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
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.
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.
The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.
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
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.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
The Twelve Angry Men was about a boy who was accused of stabbing his father to death in a argument. In the beginning of the trial all twelve of the juror's voted guilty. Many of the juror's were mean and did not care about the boy's future they just wanted to get the trial over with so the juror's can do what they wanted to do. Later in the case one of the juror's realized they were messing with a boys life and his future was all up to them. So a juror realized that some of the information that a witness brought up had to be false. So they analyzed the information and came to the conclusion that the boy could not have stabbed his father the way he did because one of the juror's had seen many knife fight's in his backyard and you can not stab someone downward with a switchblade. Also another witness said that the knife that the kid had could be bought anywhere. The juror's discriminated the boy because he lived in the slums , he has a criminal record and he was always fighting with his dad so they just assumed he was the one that killed his dad.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly do such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
Twelve people are brought together to decide whether the teenage boy is innocent or guilty. In the jury room, eleven of them vote guilty. Only one of them decides to take the case more serious and make a decision based on reasonable doubt. In this mini-drama each if the jurors has prejudices and preconceptions, which make the case more difficult. The situation makes the lawyer’s absence obvious and shows the significant impact on the decision made by the juror. It is true that justice starts from ordinary people, but if there is law performance of official representatives in a court, the verdict will be biased and incorrect. In every trial, it is highly important to look at things from different angles and listen to various perspectives. Lawyers should show the facts and make sure that the power given to certain people is not misused like in this
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the