Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity. But in the play “12 Angry Men” Written by Reginald Rose, and the film “Runaway Jury” directed by Gary Fleder, we see that justice is not always blind and can be manipulated in and outside of the jury and courtroom. In this essay I will discuss two similarities and one difference between this play and film.
The first comparable similarity I am going to talk about is how juror number eight and Nick Easter are very similar. They both come into the jury room looking for justice for the victims,
…show more content…
The white minority and Vicksburg Firearms both had enormous amounts of power against the minority. It is also extremely challenging to fight copious conflicts against a majority, because they do have more people and more resources to get ideas and information from. In both the play and film the minority overcomes the challenges and fights for what is fair and acceptable. In “12 Angry Men” when they first arrived in the jury room and started discussing the case, then voted it was eleven too one. Then when juror number eight demanded them to discuss the case further, they let their prejudices go to come to a fair and honest verdict. That is the same in “Runaway Jury” the gun company, Vicksburg Firearms was the majority but Nick Easter stood alone and discussed with everyone that they need to talk about the case more.
The most significant difference to me between the play “12 Angry Men” and the film “Runaway Jury” is the settings of the play and film. In “12 Angry Men” the jurors never left the jury room so therefore they had no outside influences changing their views or perspectives on things. But in “Runaway Jury” at first they were allowed to go home and talk to others or have others talk to them. This changed things a lot when Finch got his people to tell some of the jurors their deepest secrets to blackmail them into voting for the verdict they
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
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.
Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
Many people like to believe they know what is right from what is wrong, but when it comes to the court system and the search for justice, Henry Drummond will fight for the cases that no other lawyer has the audacity to take on. Drummond exhibits an undying perseverance to fight for Bertram Cates in the Scopes Trial depicted in Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s play, Inherit the Wind. Through Henry Drummond’s tactfulness, open-mindedness, and determination, he is able to make a biased town see the absurdity of a law that takes away a person's right to freedom of thought. Henry Drummond’s tactfulness allows him to convince a partisan jury of the absurdity of putting a man on trial for simply expressing an unpopular viewpoint.
The African American man by the name of Tom Robinson finds himself in a case against, Mayella Ewell, who identifies as a Caucasian woman, from the perspective of a skilled lawyer appointed to the case, Atticus, finds the case biased from the start. During the Great Depression, any court session that contained a person of color against a Caucasian would always contain the “white” individual winning the case. The cause of the biased outcome comes from when the lawyer of the African American does not give the effort to defend or the jury goes against the person of color simply because they are colored, this shows the effect of racism on anyone’s identity in the courtroom during the great depression. Biased racism limits the arguments a lawyer can appeal to the jury about defending the defendant to win the case, but can simultaneously limit the amount of voice the jury hears from both sides.
The Scottsboro Trial and the trial of Tom Robinson are almost identical in the forms of bias shown and the accusers that were persecuted. The bias is obvious and is shown throughout both cases, which took place in the same time period. Common parallels are seen through the time period that both trials have taken place in and those who were persecuted and why they were persecuted in the first place. The thought of "All blacks were liars, and all blacks are wrongdoers," was a major part of all of these trails. A white person's word was automatically the truth when it was held up to the credibility of someone whom was black. Both trials were perfect examples of how the people of Alabama were above the law and could do whatever they wanted to the black people and get away with it. In both trials lynch mobs were formed to threaten the black people who were accused. Judge Hornton tried many times to move the case to a different place so that a fair trial could take place and not be interrupted by the racist people. Finally was granted to move the case even though the lynch mobs threatened to kill everyone who was involved in the case if it were to be moved. In this essay the bias and racism in both trials are going to be clarified and compared to each other.
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.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
... of Kafka’s The Trial and brings to light some of the frightening realities of the legal system during the early to mid 20th century. Whether it is the inaccessible court or lawyers, or the complete disregard for evidence and documentation. Even if some of the fault lies in the accused for not understanding the system, many trials in this period reflected poor practices of justice particularly so in the case of Bukharin and Dreyfus. Kafka’s work truly encapsulates the legal system both before and after The Trial was written incredibly effectively. It gives a clear idea as to the how miscarriages of justice can occur and what changes had to be made to the legal system in order resolve these issues. It is perhaps arguable that the courts today still face some of these issues and that Kafka’s work is still relevant in determining some of our legal principles today.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
This can be exemplified by the fate suffered by the Scottsboro boys after they were accused of raping two white women. Although there was no evidence to prove their guilt, the all-white juries in their trials still found them guilty and sentenced them to life in prison (Pettengill, 10-5-2015). This unjust approach towards African Americans is portrayed in Bigger’s trial and is highlighted by Max’s words “And not only is this man a criminal, but a black criminal. And as such, he comes into court under handicap, notwithstanding our pretensions that all are equal before the law” (Wright, 1518). The trial is not truly representative of justice, but just a show for the public, and allowing an all-white jury to decide on Bigger’s fate is unfair because their minds are already conditioned by the press of the nation which has already reached a decision as to his guilt. Using Bessie’s body, not as real evidence, but to incite anger in the jurors and to make them see Bigger as a true criminal and sway their decision into an affirmative guilty decision shows how once again, a black body is being exploited by whites to uphold their prejudiced views of African Americans.
If there was no incredibly belligerent, cantankerous and impatient bigot the play would be lacking in its purpose. Reginald Rose created Twelve Angry Men not only for entertainment, but to convey that even the jury system has issues. Rose did this by creating an easily repulsive character that expressed extreme prejudice for the boy on trial. Seemingly juror ten exists not only for conflict, but to demonstrate to the audience that personal biases may affect the way the jury thinks. Being one in a room of twelve individuals, juror ten truly withholds the essence of an angry
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their
When Shakespeare was born in 1564, Queen Elizabeth had taken power a mere 6 years prior, and her justice system was very different from ours. In this paper, I hope to explore some of the ways punishments were different, such as how many crimes had individual punishments, often times depending on how severe the crime was. I will also go in-depth to one of the most infamous cases of the medieval period.
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.