Summary : ' 12 Angry Men ' Essay

995 Words4 Pages
Amit Erez
Professor Huppin
Communication Studies 170
May 14, 2016 Thought Paper #2 The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross-section of the community.
In the film, 12 Angry Men, the chosen jury panel was far from what we would consider today to be “representative of the community.” As we saw in the film, a jury non-representative of its peers can provoke prejudice and indifference in the trial process. The jury panel in 12 Angry Men consisted of all white men who were all middle-aged with the exception of two elder fellows. The defendant in this case was a young, Puerto Rican male. Before deliberation, the jurors took an initial vote count to see which men were leaning toward a verdict of guilty, and which ones were leaning to vote not guilty. The count was 11 to 1. Only one man was reasonable and brave enough to challenge the majority, and presume the boy’s innocence. From the very beginning, a more diverse jury could have remedied this imbalance. It is a concern that a jury consisting of all white members

More about Summary : ' 12 Angry Men ' Essay

Get Access