Jury plays a vital role in a criminal case in that the life of the offendder ulitimately hangs in the balance of those twelve unique individuals hands. It is their duty to remain impartial, independent, uninfluenced by any other person, and only decide the facts of the case. However, we are humans, and each of us perceive the world in different ways, which are influenced by our past and present experiences. Therefore, our judgements are clouded if we are unable to move away from those perceptions when it comes to deciding an individuals guilt or innocence. In the film 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, we can witness in firsthand how jury members could pose a bias due to their unique individual personality and personal experiences, when deciding the guilt or innocence of another human being. It also shows how such crucial facts and evidence, if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome entirely.
According to the film, the play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. As the film opens to the empty jury room, the judges voice is heard informing the jury that if the nineteen year old defendant who is charged with murdering his father is found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is …show more content…
It is unfair to an individual whos life hangs in the balance. No one should take the duty of being a juror so lightly as the men in film had done. Time and dedication that most of the jurors were not willing to give ultimately saved the life of this nineteen year old young man. Juror number eight showed us all that decisions should not be implemented based on stereotypes and that every possible factor should be taken into consideration. In the eyes of these twelve unique personalities, this nineteen year old young man was certainly guilty until proven
According to the film, the play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. As the film opens to the empty jury room, the judges voice is heard informing the jury that if the nineteen year old defendant who is charged with murdering his father is found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is …show more content…
It is unfair to an individual whos life hangs in the balance. No one should take the duty of being a juror so lightly as the men in film had done. Time and dedication that most of the jurors were not willing to give ultimately saved the life of this nineteen year old young man. Juror number eight showed us all that decisions should not be implemented based on stereotypes and that every possible factor should be taken into consideration. In the eyes of these twelve unique personalities, this nineteen year old young man was certainly guilty until proven