Doug Davis: Cartoon Analysis

Juror 3 an emotionally distraught man who has not been in touch with his estranged son votes guilty based on biases to young children who have lack respect to their elders this is shown when he points out to Juror 2 “I’d think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble” this enrage provokes a sense of dislike in the audience to Juror 3 as he believes that violence is the key to problem-solving. In relation to both jurors there is always seems to be tension amongst them when Juror 8 constantly reveals Juror 3’s weaknesses that is delaying them from reaching a final verdict. Rose uses these two jurors to shows how there is always one juror who will always bring out people’s imperfections.

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.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then

The current study integrates past research and theory on racial bias in juror decision-making, positing that White mock jurors will demonstrate higher rates of false alarms in cases involving African American suspects. In other words, White jurors will be biased towards believing that African American suspects are guilty, thus assuming the stereotype of minority criminality. This hypothesis was formed based on prior research indicating the presence of White juror biases against Black defendants, and in-group/out-group racial biases (Sommers & Ellsworth,

Thirdly, is a cartoon called “Patience Monsignor Your Time Will Come.” This cartoon depicts the Clergy and shows the clergy being fat, overfed, and underworked. It demonstrates that the clergy had more wealth in the church than the poor peasants. The people disliked that the church was wealthier than the people and wanted the clergy to be squeezed of all their money. The people of the enlightenment went in and attack the Church, taking as much money as they could. The Catholic's became very offended, but they found themselves to be more afraid of the power that the commoners held. The many different cartoons of this time brought harsh criticism to the Catholic churches. But the depictions of the events helped the people express their feelings

Judges and juries often do not properly represent the whole population fairly. According to Thomas M. Ross’s article “Judges do not represent society, since most of them are still male, caucasian, and from the middle class”(Ross). This issue is not just found in the judge, but also in the jury. This issue is addressed by Star Tribune in their article “The Color of Law: Can

Since, modern technical advances allow our culture to live in a generation where our society fosters impatience. Hsieh states, “As jurors demand slicker, speedier bite-like presentation of trial evidence, lawyers are hiring visual artists, computer, graphic designers and illustrators to transform piles of documents into light, sound and images,” (586). Of course, the growing need encompasses opportunity for employment in the audio-visual fields. Consequently, jurors are conditioned to

As far as prejudice goes, there is one juror that sticks out the most as being the most bigot-like, that is juror #10. Many of his comments throughout the movie demonstrate a feeling of white supremacy, and no empathy towards the young man on trial, being that he is African American. In one scene he proclaims, “Well don’t you know about them? They’re a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen to me!” Following that he continues to make more stereotypical comments about blacks, calling them drunks and saying that human life does not mean as much to them. After so many of his racist comments, the other jurors tune him out and disregard his opinions. This affects the overall communication of the group because it angers the other members and distracts from the goal at hand which is to come to a decision. We also see prejudice get in the way of solving

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).

Many of the jurors’ personal biases, often the causes of relational or ego/identity based conflict, constantly undermine the voting. Throughout the entire film, perhaps the most heated source of conflict arises from the group’s perception of that era’s underprivileged youth; they are stereotyped as, criminals, menaces to society, and rebels who don’t respect authority. Beginning of film,

Several of the jurors are shown to have serious personal biases that interfere with their ability to objectively look at the evidence of the case. The most prominent example is Juror no. 10, a garage owner, who from the very beginning is shown to be bigoted towards people from the slums. One of his first lines, in response to Juror

The author’s perspective, Ben Garrison, towards his cartoon is that he uses his own knowledge to demonstrates that not everyone benefited in the growth of capitalism. He illustrated the system of capitalism where some people lived in upper class, in middle class or in lower class. Garrison created a smoke cloud in the pyramid which demonstrating that the class division happened during the boom of poverty. Garrison made his creative cartoon with the tone of massive and contented at the same time that makes the source 5 very effective and understandable for the viewers. He also put a flag of America with the sign of a dollar which represents ‘money’ that leads to capitalism. In other words, Garrison is telling the viewers that during 1920’s