Innocent until proven guilty. This is a saying people use to basically say that until proof has been found, they didn’t do it. In court this is very true, one needs evidence to prove someone’s guilt or innocence. In the end, it’s the jury who makes the call. A jury is made up of all different people from all different backgrounds. Every person brings a different opinion and a different backstory to the jury table. In both the Conrad Murray trial and the play Twelve Angry Men, the jurors had to decide whether or not a man was guilty of murder. In both cases, the jurors most likely had previous opinions that could conceivably sway their decisions. Ultimately, on any court case, is difficult to get everyone on the jury to agree.
The Conrad Murray
…show more content…
nd Comparisons “Concomitant use of Propofol with other CNS depressants including sedative, hypnotics and inhalation anesthetics may increase the sedative, anesthetic, and cardiorespiratory depressants effects of Propofol” (AHFS …show more content…
Arguably, one of the most important jurors in the story is Juror Eight. The vote count in the beginning was 11 to 1 in favor of guilty with Juror Eight being the 1, the ending vote was 12 to 0, with the verdict being not guilty. Juror Eight looks at all the evidence in a different way and asks questions that make the others do a double take. If Juror Eight was on the jury for the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, and if there is any reasonable doubt, he would most likely think Dr. Murray was not guilty. From the play, Juror Eight says that, “As far as I know, we’re suppose to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here.” (Rose 9). He makes a very good point, they are only there to decide if the boy is guilty for killing his father, nothing else. That boy has done many illegal things before but he is only on trial for killing his father. This isn’t a murder mystery; they don’t need to find the actual killer, that’s the policies’ job. Like the play, Dr. Murray did do many illegal things and that is one hundred percent true, but the trial was only to determine whether or not he gave Jackson that last lethal dose of Propofol. There was a big discussion about whether or not Jackson injected himself with Propofol. But the fact is Dr. Murray should not have been giving Jackson Propofol as a sleeping aid. However as stated before, the
“Adam Foulds- UEA.” University of East Anglia –UEA. N.p., June 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
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
He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about.
33.3 (2008): 268-83. Taylor and Francis. University of New South Wales, 19 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
Audesirk, Teresa, Gerald Audesirk, and Bruce E. Byers. Biology: Life on Earth with Physiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2011. 268-69. Print.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (pp. 6747-6752). Ed. Dale Purves. Vol. 105. National Academy of Sciences.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
McLeod, Saul. "The Milgram Experiment." Milgram Experiment. N.p., 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 15 May 2014.
Noggle, C. A., Dean, R. S., & Horton, A. M. (Eds.). (2012) The Encyclopedia of
Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Neese-Todd, S., Asmussen, S., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). The
1. Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A. L., LoTempio, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the
Copyright 1993-2012 Mark Winter [The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.
University of California, Berkely. UC Berkely News Center. 1 July 2010. 30 March 2012 .
Haanstra. A, Van der Pool. E et al (2013). Checklist and explanation for setting up a Plan of Approach for your Graduation Assignment (version 2.1). Arnhem: HAN (Reader 3343)