Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bias in the US justice system
Effectiveness of the jury system in delivering justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bias in the US justice system
Effectiveness of the jury system in delivering justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
No matter the motives of any juror, each can be traced back to Juror Eight, and the fact that he was brave enough to stand against the crowd. In the end, every juror eventually reached the verdict of not guilty, but there was still a very long process to get there, and many people that produced the answers for the others. Juror Eight is the only reason anyone in this play made a single sound, and he may have eventually been brought down if Juror Nine hadn’t changed his vote to support him. They worked as a team, with Juror Five soon joining in, Juror Eight had an incredible impact on everyone in that room, and he is the reason a boy who was most likely innocent was set
Twelve Angry Men was about a group of jurors struggle to come with a verdict for a murder case. In the beginning, all but one tenacious juror believed that the eighteen year old boy was guilty of murdering his father. The main problem of the story was that the jurors verdict had to be unanimous. Through the process of trying to get each other to change positions, the jurors face many arguments and disagreements. The jurors personalities clash multiple times because each one has a different view on things and are adamant in their decisions.
In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror #3 makes two contradictory comments that actually help juror #8 prove that there may be grounds for reasonable doubt in this case. The first contradictory comment that Juror #3 makes is about the notorious phrase exclaimed throughout the centuries, a phrase that should make the hairs on your neck stand up in fright, however, it does not. This particular phrase is mentioned during a verbal brawl between Juror #3 and Juror #8, “I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him” (43)! It is apparent that Juror #3 does not actually intend to kill Juror #8 which contradicts what Juror #3 claimed earlier when he stated that telling someone that you want to kill them is a threat to be taken to heart and serves as legitimate
In 12 Angry Men, Juror Three’s past negative experiences with his kid affect how he acts during the trial. In Act I, Juror Three mentions how he had a bad relationship with his kid. He talks about how much he hates kids, specifically his. In this scene, Juror Three is letting out his anger on this case. Juror Eight also says “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch” (42).
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
I believe people do have a tendency to allow their prejudices to direct their decisions. People have their prejudices, feel they are right and go along with that feeling. A great example of this is Juror Three in Twelve Angry Men. He believed the boy murdered his father because he felt he did it.
In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
In the court system, jurors are tasked with the duty to conduct a fair verdict based on the testimony given and additional evidence shown. Some may forget this responsibility and use their prejudices that affect the juror's decision on the defendant's future. As a result, the accused may be falsely convicted and lose the majority of their life. The play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows three perfect examples of prejudices during jury duty such as colorism, classism, and ageism.
While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.
Juror 3’s background, personality, and unique experiences coalesce to form his perspective and judgment, which is critical when coming to a well-rounded
In Twelve Angry Men author, Reginald Rose, demonstrates the importance of not only serving on Jury Duty but a valuable life lesson for the jurors as well. Rose began the play with a description of twelve diverse men with twelve very unique personalities. Rose is trying to consult an illustration on why it’s important to see every piece of evidence by showing emotion through characters resolving them to argue and disagree. He is trying to show how even when you don't want to do something, put an extra 110% of your effort into it, the life of another, isn't something to joke around with. Jury duty is called upon and mandatory when you’re a U.S. citizen.
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because
A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.
In the modern-day judicial system, prejudiced jurors are one of the leading concerns; this is outlined in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. In this novel, Lee reveals the racial injustices vividly happening in trials. By revealing the prejudiced jury system, the court cannot be trusted as it is now corrupt. Bias in jury