Should a person 's guilt or innocence be determined by a jury of his or her peers? Some people believe both sides of the argument. A jury is selected to listen to evidence supporting and opposing the defendant. Then, the jury must further examine the information given to them and render a verdict. In twelve angry men the jury could have made an incorrect judgement and sentenced the defendant as not guilty when he actually was guilty.
The purpose of a jury is to assess the evidence, establish the facts of a case and determine guilt, liability or innocence of the accused. Assessing the evidence is when the jury reviews the evidence presented by both the prosecuting and defense attorney. Establishing the facts of a case is when the jury examines
…show more content…
Peter Van Koppen, law professor, explained in his 2009 essay that juries cannot debate, "technical issues beyond their aptitude." In cases where the accused is a well known person, members of the jury have been known to acquit the celebrity because of their notoriety. A probable example of this being O.J. Simpson. Judge Julius Howard Miner had previously complained that members of the legal profession were concerned that juries were acquitting “notorious criminals where the proof clearly indicated their guilt.” Erin Bransburu states that, “In late 2009, the U.S. was coming out of a recession. So, The New York Times published an article called “Call To Jury Duty Strikes Fear Of Financial Ruin.” These three quotations make it appear that a jury is not necessarily the most effective means in finding a person innocent or guilty.
The old woman didn 't wear her glasses on in bed so she could only see a blur. The old man couldn 't have gotten to the door and down the hall in the short amount of time. The killer would 've had to switch hands holding the knife and the defendant was a lot more experienced with knives than that.
In conclusion, a jury serves as a major part of our justice system. Its responsibilities include examining the evidence, verifying the facts, and reaching a verdict of either guilty or not guilty in each case. Research has shown that the jury system does not provide the most convincing methods for proving guilt or innocence. In Twelve Angry Men, after contemplating all of the evidence presented, they are without a doubt incorrect with the verdict they