The major conflict in the play, Nine Ten by Warren Leight is jury duty. The first thing people think when they hear the words “jury duty” is sitting in a courthouse all day and night disagreeing whether a person is guilty or innocent. For most, the immediate thought when getting that letter out of the mailbox is that they do not have time. Their lives are full enough with running the kids to school and to after school activities. Their next thought may be, ‘but I’m going out of town soon’, just because a select few are going to jury duty does not mean that time will stand still and wait for their duty to be done. The last thing to cross most people’s mine, is that jury duty is a right, a civic duty, to allow a fellow man to speak to a member of his peers. However, just because most people dislike jury duty does not mean everyone does, some people may take great pride in deciding the fate of another person. The first question that comes to the mind of those chosen for jury duty is “how long is this going to last?” Everyone knows whether by experience or word of mouth that jury duty is usually time consuming. And most people do not have enough time in their busy schedule to sit in a Courthouse all day. According to the characters is the play, “Two days is eternity” which is how long their case is going to last (page 771). Not to mention the grace period that most people do not know about, “They say eight-thirty so that most people get here by nine. And around nine-ten they start calling names” (page 768). For first time jury members they could get extra anxious just sitting around for 40 minutes until someone finally comes in to explain the grace period to them. Luckily, jobs and schools have to allow a person to miss days the per... ... middle of paper ... ...8). However, if it was them who had been accused of a crime, surely they would be very happy to have a jury, instead of one person deciding their fate. There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves. Works Cited Leight, Warren. “Nine Ten.” Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. 7th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 767 - 771. Print.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The play moves in an increasingly intense montage of scenes that lead up to the conviction of nine Order members. A little research informs that many of the members portrayed in the play are still serving jail sentences today. Considering the play was not easy to watch, it must have been just as difficult to perform. Go...
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
In A Jury of Peers by Susan Glaspell, the story revolves around the sudden death of John Wright. There are five characters that participate in the investigation of this tragedy. Their job is to find a clue to the motive that will link Mrs. Wright, the primary suspect, to the murder. Ironically, the ladies, whose duties did not include solving the mystery, were the ones who found the clue to the motive. Even more ironic, Mrs. Hale, whose presence is solely in favor of keeping the sheriff s wife company, could be contributed the most to her secret discovery. In this short story, Mrs. Hale s character plays a significant role to Mrs. Wright s nemesis in that she has slight feelings of accountability and also her discovery of the clue to the motive.
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
The central theme in “A Jury of Her Peers” is the place of women in society and especially the isolation this results in. We see this through the character, Minnie Foster and her isolation from love, happiness, companionship and from society as a whole. Not only does the story describe this isolation but it allows the reader to feel the impact of this isolation and recognize the tragedy of the situation.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
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.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
A lot of countries use a jury system. Some are very different and some are very similar. Some countries don't have a jury system. Some countries have a jury system, but don't use it. Others have jury systems, but they are different than the one we know here in the US.
A jury system inquires fairness in a court case. A jury is “A group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser” (Law.com Legal Dictionary 2014). As a jury member they are obligated to tell the truth and give an honest response. The jury system randomly selects 12 people for each court case. Once you are 18 years old and registered you can be selected for jury service. There are two categories of people who cannot serve and that is people who are excluded from the jury roll and who are exempt from jury service (NSW Government 2014). Those who are excluded are people with criminal convictions and who hold high positions in public office. Those exempted are due to their employment (NSW Government 2014). As a jury member you are expected to dress appropriately, be honest, and give fu...
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
Twelve Angry Men is a perfect representation of how the jury process took place before the 2000’s, but now that we have evolved as a whole through political, racial, and gender eras, the depiction is a little outdated and I feel as though today’s society no longer values the rights of an individual who has been arrested for a charge they may have possibly committed. Once selected to be part of a juror, he/she must “take a solemn oath, by the ever-living God,
Long-drawn out trials that go on for years cause psychological stress, tension in the family of those involved in the case, and these trials make a huge dent in the money supply of the court system in the government. Each day members of the jury have to be accounted for and must receive money for their services. Using a judge is both cost-effective and smart. Additionally, judges usually don’t take as long to make decisions in court as they are both efficient in what they do and are well-informed of the subject, the particular person on trial, and they have the know-how to execute the correct sentence. “In 2010, 2,352 federal criminal defendants had a jury trial and 88% of these criminal jury trials ended in a conviction.” (Document A) Now on the one hand some...
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.
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.