ipl-logo

Twelve Angry Men And The Court System

1057 Words5 Pages

“One man is dead the life of another is at stake… I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” (Rose 312). These words are from the judge at the beginning of the play twelve angry men. However this story is a great example of the many problems with the court system. The problems include: Jurors not being able to ask questions in court, people are appointed unqualified lawyers if they don’t have money to pick one themselves, giving them a less fair trial, also the accused are tried by peers who are biased and just don’t care about the trial. The first major problem of the court system is that Jurors cannot talk or ask questions in court. This proves to be a serious problem because a juror could have a good valid point to bring up in court. An example of this is just like in the story. In the story, juror eight brings up many valid points with the other jurors that could have completely turned the tide and helped the accused victim, but was not allowed to bring up these points due to his inability to talk in the court session. Another problem that goes side by side with the first point is that because of their inability to speak in the court session jurors then have to …show more content…

Like in the story…“We’re not. We’re going to find out how a man who’s had two strokes in the past three years, and who walks with a pair of canes, could get to his front door in fifteen seconds“ (Rose 327).

Show More
Related
515 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

Read More
367 Words | 2 Pages

We would argue that all six approaches were used in 12 Angry Men, though in varying degrees. Democratic ethics can be found in the jury room itself, especially with Juror 8 bringing up again and again that the case be discussed openly because he had reasonable doubt, saying it was important because someone might die as a result of their decision and that all things should be taken into account for the greater good. Juror 11 also remarked upon this saying “we don’t get anything out of this” but that the men were, regardless, committed to doing what was right. Universal-Humanitarian ethics arise in the relentless fact checking and commitment to facts not emotions for the best rational reasoning. This was heavily exemplified by by Jurors 3 and

Read More
88 Words | 1 Pages

Juries mostly sit in the Crown Court; if a defendant pleads not guilty, he will be tried by a judge sitting with 12 jurors. Due to numerous cases of jury misconduct being brought to light, serious questions about jury trials are being augmented. To an extent, this is compromising people’s confidence in the jury system. Jury misconduct can be explained as an infringement of the law of the court by a member of the jury, either while a court case is underway or after a verdict is out.

Read More
1535 Words | 7 Pages

The other 11 jurors are ready to send the defendant to his death without so much as a discussion of the evidence, however Juror #8 isn't convinced and believes that it is their duty to discuss the case when a man's

Read More
1254 Words | 6 Pages

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

Read More
633 Words | 3 Pages

Jurors for Justice? What if the justice system wasn’t as unbiased as you thought? Within the play Twelve Angry Men the justice system supposedly chose 12 men to give a fair verdict for a boy that supposedly murdered his own father but, instead some jurors have other plans, bias backgrounds, or predetermined decisions. One way Twelve Angry Men shows an unfair trial is the backgrounds of the jurors.

Read More
137 Words | 1 Pages

This is majorly demonstrated between the 8th and 3rd jurors. Twelve Angry Men demonstrates the fatal flaws in the American justice system

Read More
886 Words | 4 Pages

Although some measures are taken to prevent this, many jurors are still prejudiced toward certain subjects and unable make a justified decision. It is said that bringing ordinary citizens into the world of court and law will help them be able to understand the justice system and teach them how to make a candid and unbiased decision. However, most of the jurors that are chosen do not possess the knowledge and experience necessary in order to reach a neutral and equitable verdict with the information and time given.(counter-argument) Many juries have made many controversial decisions such as the infamous OJ Simpson murder case. The jury acquitted the defendant, but many believe that the jury was biased.

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

Read More
976 Words | 4 Pages

With every decision being amplified, there are extremely fine margins for errors. To prevent an unfair verdict, it is thus important for any underlying bias to be rooted out and hence I strongly support the abolishment of the jury system for cases involving the death penalty. Although the abolishment of the jury system has indeed brought about controversy, it is in the interest of fairness that the jury system is abolished. Juries are

Read More

More about Twelve Angry Men And The Court System

Related Topics

Open Document