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
Role of jurors in the crown court
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Twelve men are put in a room to decide the fate of a boy on trial. Did he commit murder? Or didn’t he? At first none of the men seem to care about the boy. He grew up in the slums, had a criminal record, and was always in trouble. Every one of the men had someplace they needed to go and just wanted to get it over with, especially juror number seven, a baseball fan who was going to miss his baseball game. They took a vote, and as expected, everyone voted guilty. It was an open and shut case. All the evidence was there. It was clear the boy committed the crime. Now everyone could go home, but, wait, there was one person whose vote did not match the others. One person cared. One person saw it; what America is supposed to be. Juror number eight.
In fury all the men turned on him. What was he thinking? Did he think it was funny to keep them there, away from their lives? It was an obvious case, what more did he want? The man calmly replied that the boy’s life was worth more than that. He did not know if the boy was guilty or not. This was a boy’s life that they held in their hands. They should at least look the case over and talk about it. Still the men continued to razz him and beat down on him with their words. He was all alone. However, slowly they began to talk about all the facts. Juror number eight, through careful thinking, was able to challenge all of them. Being, as negotiators say, a devil’s advocate, he questioned everything they said, just to force them to negotiate about it. To add conflict to things that before didn’t seem to need to be talked about. He didn’t know if the boy was innocent or guilty, but he knew his case deserved more than five minutes. The pressure built when he pulled out a knife that looked exactly l...
... middle of paper ...
...d in court, had those same marks on the sides of her nose. A gasp filled the room and everyone was astonished. Juror four gradually remembered that he too saw the marks, and switched sides. Juror three broke out in a rage and got all emotional, but in the end he realized that the real reason he didn’t believe the boy was innocent had nothing to do with the boy, but with what happened to his own son. Juror ten, seeing that he had lost, changed sides, and the case was again brought to court.
To be a true leader, one must stand up for what is right, even it is all alone. Even if no one else cares. A true leader also listens to others views patiently, and with respect; they don’t let their emotions or their past cloud their view. The fact is, a man is innocent until proven guilty. If juror eight wouldn’t have stood up for that, then an innocent boy would have died.
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
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.
Billy Joel once sang, “Only the good die young”. In life, it is true, the young and innocent seem to touch more lives around us than anyone else. In the Casey Anthony trial, Anthony was a suspect in the murder of her daughter Caylee. Caylee’s life shouldn’t be counted in years, it should be counted by how many lives she affected, the love she has gained, and the support the country has given her to find out what really happened. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a boy killed his father; however, both cases were challenged by the obvious and the abstruse evidence. Large cities towards the east coast, in 1982, Twelve Angry Men, and 2008, Casey Anthony Trial, affiliated with two major trials able to modify the lives of the living and the dead. For that reason, during the Casey Anthony case, jurors were conflicted throughout the trial.
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
In conclusion, the story of Randall Adams’ unjust imprisonment is presented as an intersection of several people’s lives. Instead of simplifying the case for the sake of clarity, Morris points out where many stories are invited - the imagination of the witnesses, TV crimes dramas, and scenes from the drive-in movie Adams and Harris attended. He complicates the legal storytelling and his film tells that it is not easy to build these aspects of an investigation into a very structure and style. Morris however successfully closes the film by gaining the audience’s distrust of the legal system and proving that Adams was innocent. With Morris’ effort on The Thin Blue Line, the truth is found; Adams was eventually released from the death row and the Texas legal system admitted its wrongly conviction.
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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 play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
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 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 book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
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.
At 1:30 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, I entered the San Bernardino Justice Center in Downtown San Bernardino for my first court visit. After passing through the metal screen detectors and making my way up to courtroom number 19, I opened the courtroom doors plated “Judge Harold Wilson” and nervously checked in with the bailiff and the court clerk. The judge, judicial clerk and two attorneys were already in the room chatting. I was surprised to hear the friendliness in their tone and conversation they all were having regarding their personal lives. The attorneys from opposing sides were chatting like they were best friends. I asked the bailiff, “If this is normal?”, he said, “Yes it is! and whatever they show on TV is not reality.” Soon after our conversation, the bailiff brought in the defendant. He was well dressed, black male, probably around the age of 35. He sat down next to the defense lawyer and the chit-chatting resumed. After 20 minutes of laughter and constant bantering, the judge asked the bailiff to bring the jury inside. As the bailiff walked outside to call the jury in, the judge went to his chambers.