Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Important role of the jury in the criminal justice system
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
The twelve angry men analytical essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In our society today citizens play a vital role in the legal system by serving as jury. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment (Wikipedia). 12 citizens are selected to serve as jury on a particular trial. In the movie, “12 Angry Men”, 12 ordinary citizens were called to serve as jury in a case to decide the verdict of a murder trial. I’m choosing these three jurors on my legal team based on their character and contribution during the jury trial as portrayed in the movie. They are juror number one, Martin Balsam, juror eight, Henry Fonda (Davis) and juror 11, George Voskovec. Juror number one, Martin played a leadership role by leading their session. He was very firm but calm. He ensured all jury members had the opportunity to exercise their rights on the day-to-day affairs of their deliberations. In the movie, he never lord his acclaimed role over his peers. He tried to seek their approval through a democratic process by voting either privately or publicly in the jury room. This is a quality needed for a jury leadership. He was a professional high school coach, as such, he was able to use his role as a leader to champion his agenda while maintaining the sanity in the jury room. Even though, he voted guilty in the beginning proceeding he later changed his decision to not guilty after numerous facts and evidence were presented by his peers. For this reason, I choose him as one of the member on my legal team The next person I would like for him to be on my legal team is juror number eight, Henry Fonda. He is a man of integrity, patient and calm, but took his role in the jury process serious... ... middle of paper ... ...s vote to not guilty. When juror number seven, Jack Walden decided to change his vote from guilty to not guilty because that was the popular vote, and as such he wanted the proceedings to end so that he could go watch sports, George questioned his integrity. Juror number seven (George) reminded him of the privilege he has in serving as a jury over such an important case. George asked Jack, “Are you voting not guilty because everybody is voting not guilty or you are voting not guilty because you feel it is the right thing to do.” I definitely want him on my legal team because of his uncompromising attitude. In conclusion, in as much as I would like jurors one, eight and 11 on my legal team, I believe the “12 Angry Men” portrayed diverse strengths and weaknesses which enabled their cause in the legal process to achieve a successful murder tri Works Cited Wikapaedia
Throughout, we have heard from the victims’ family. I would like to now offer in my behalf and on the behalf of my fellow jurors in the case our utmost sympathies for the respective families of the two victims on the loss of Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler and commend them for their bravery throughout this ordeal, which I could only imagine is a hard one. I urge all the victims’ families
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.
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
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.
The personality of the character played by Henry Fonda affected the way things played out because he was analyzing all of the evidence and the whole situation. The character played by Henry Fonda, was an architect. In the first initial vote, he was the only one who voted not guilty. This juror which was #8, made sure that they went over all of the evidence and eye wi...
Once he had missed his game, he became more understanding; as if he was two completely different people. Jack Lemmon (#8) was the most compassionate and brave to me. He stayed strong to his beliefs and evidence while everyone was rude to him and tried everything to prove him wrong. He didn’t care what the other men’s opinions were he just wanted to make sure that this young boy wasn’t accused of killing his father if it wasn't the truth. The “old man” of the group was Hume Cronyn (#9) at the beginning he was apologetic but willing to take an hour to make sure that this boy wouldn’t be wrongly accused.
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
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.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
First of all, I’d like to greatly thank the jury for coming and serving on this trial. Today, Mr. James King is being tried of the felony murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Mr. Nesbitt’s death is a sad truth to his family and his community. However, to place Mr. King as the murderer without solid evidence is preposterous. Remember, I’d like to remind the jury that if there is any reasonable doubt in the claim of Mr. King, you must vote not-guilty. I urge you to realise that by placing Mr. King in jail for 25 years to life, you will be compromising this young man’s entire future. I hope you make an informed decision to keep Mr. King out of jail.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
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.