Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men, depicted a both inspiring yet damaged representation of America’s legal system. While justice and truth led the jury a morally sound decision, it was not without disobedience and multiple instances of legal infraction. Time after time, prominent figures in the jury room presented personal opinions and even gave examples of unrelated life experiences. In the United States, where all decisions of juries must be made on evidence provided in the courtroom, these individuals violated the law. This 1950’s drama ultimately raises concern over the state of our legal system; which is one where right and wrong are smothered by overwhelming legal guidelines. For the jury to reach the unanimous agreement they did, assumption, illegal evidence and biased opinions would have had to be present.
The most obvious and unauthorized use of evidence presented over the course of the film would be that of the duplicate switchblade found by juror number eight. Legally, this piece of evidence could have been considerably compelling if brought up by the accused's attorney. As the knife was found outside of the trial, it
…show more content…
One of the jurors was unwavering in his opinions, letting his personal interactions with his son sway his vote. Prejudice and partiality have no place in the jury room, no matter what kind of influence it has over the juror in their day to day life. Implicit biases or unconscious stereotypes against members of certain groups are almost impossible to control, no matter what regulation is set into place. A student from Cornell Law School, in regards to bias, claimed that “[jurors] who saw the dark skinned perpetrator were more likely to evaluate evidence as tending to indicate guilty” (Levinson). This undoubtedly racist bias definitely was present in the arguments against the young
The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.
* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where
However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]
Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his
He is a bigot and a racist, and one of the last jurors to vote not guilty. He is very stubborn and doesn't understand why it's taking so long to reach a verdict. To him, "those people" (perhaps either referring to the kid’s race or for him being a teenager) are "potential menaces to society" and he doesn't "want any part of them." As the play goes on, he continually fights against those who are voting not guilty, for no particular reason but his prejudice all while ignoring the facts related to the case. Near the end, all of his prejudice and hate comes out in a big monologue. As he is speaking, the other jurors turn their backs on him as they recognize the motives for his verdict. He soon comes to the realization that there is no foundation for his prejudices and is ashamed of his outburst. He finally votes not guilty and sits down silent, defeated, and embarrassed. It is unfortunately inevitable that these characters come out in situations even in this age. It is even more unfortunate that these same exact people are also serving jury duty in the American court system. Is it necessarily “bad” that some people scrutinize through filters with which they view the world around them? Just as the rest of the jury realized the erroneous motives of number 10, these types of people force people to reevaluate their own ways of thinking and seek empathy before reaching a conclusion in their own
At times the defendant is treated very unfairly and is often discriminated due to his personal background. It is certainly the 10th juror who most vehemently represents the potential frightening power of racism and xenophobia. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty and he views the defendant “not as an individual, but as a representative of a larger group.” The 10th Juror does not want any further discussions and wants the boy to be sent to the electric chair. The 10th is very unfair on the defendant and expresses his hate towards people from the slums “it’s
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
The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.
Larry Watson’s 1993 novella ‘Montana 1948’ tells a tale of loyalty and justice through a young boy living in a town where the justice system is corrupted by family ties and racism. Likewise, in Reginald Rose’s 1954 teleplay ‘Twelve Angry Men’, twelve jurors determine the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. Although the stories are quite different, Montana 1948 having a strong family dynamic and Twelve Angry Men being a short courtroom drama, ultimately they both explore justice as a theme and how justice can be very subjective and moulded to
The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.
The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.
It is also worth to mention that another of the white, male jurors, Henry Idle, was at that moment 27 years old, dropped out of high school after the tenth grade. He has in the past worked as a dishwasher and a fry cook, but he is currently unemployed, and leaves in a not very good neighborhood. These last facts leave no doubt as to whether the prosecutor had been entirely sincere in stating his reasons for challenging Mr. Morris and all other African-Americans. The Defense renewed all of here objections on the record and stated all pertinent inconsistencies found in the state reasons to dismiss multiple African-Americans and women, then the defense moved the court for a mistrial. (R. at 65)
presents a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was
Many important topics and integral information that is an essential part in the criminal justice system have been introduced in the play “12 Angry Men”. Some examples of this would be crime and justice including the laws, criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system in itself. These issues are everyday situations but many people have been oblivious to the problem. The twelve jurors have an assignment where they will have to decide whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. All twelve men are frustrated and lack patience which lead them to be contumacious and unfocused. Their distraction led to many key facts getting misemployed and emotions start to cross making it hard for the jurors to construct a resolution. They have been oblivious to the effect that it would have on the community itself. On the information given up to this point this process essay will articulate the unenlightenment and egomaniacal principles of the twelve men in the short story and movie "Twelve Angry Men" written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sidney Lumet. Both Lumet and Rose showed their point of views of the criminal justice system in the play and the movie. Although the director's view on the justice system demonstrated the rights that everyone had, it also revealed his thoughts on how the justice system is corrupt, ineffective and unjust because all these aspects have shown the major differences in the morality of the twelve individuals and the problem at hand in the movie and play “12 Angry Men”.
Is the american justice system really that strong? 4,000 people a year are wrongly convicted and spend their lives in depressing and unbearable prison cells (National Geographic). With this horrible and sad evidence, it is a sure thing to say that America's justice system is frail and could use improvement. While there has been improvement from a long time ago, there is still so much that can be done to strengthen and improve our justice system. Throughout his play, 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose exemplifies the common theme of the American justice system being frail.