The pitfall of the stereotyping in the jury rooms is that creates an injustice to the defendant and that corrupts understanding and therefore, blocks the logical reasoning in the decision making process of reaching a fair verdict.
Juror number eight, in the movie, displays many of the characteristics of a critical thinking compared with other jurors. He “strive for understanding, keeps the curiosity alive, remain patient and ready to invest time to overcome confusion” (Ruggiero, 2012, p.21). He asks for more consideration of the case and to “talk for a while.” Not only that, but he challenges the validity of all evidence. In this case, time and dialogue are the most important elements in the process of evaluating the argument based on the …show more content…
Such opinion can have some serious disadvantages, because will be hard to separate discerning facts from suppositions. For example, they may ignore admissible evidence; or they could use their feelings as information. According to Neubauer & Fradella, (2011) evidence represent anything used to prove or disprove the existence of the fact. For the most part, evidence can be split into two categories: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence establishes the existence of a fact in question without relying on inference, like eyewitness testimony, such as the testimony of the “old lady “ from cross the street that sworn that she saw the defendant killed his father. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that is offered to establish the likelihood of a fact that is in question, but by inference, such as the knife found at the crime scene. Because the defendant had a similar knife, most of the jurors concluded that the defendant committed the crime. A good defense lawyer would challenge the strength of the evidence presented to create the reasonable doubt, but in this case, the burden of persuasion revolves around critical analysis of the evidence in the jury room. During the course of the debate, by …show more content…
Initially, the service in the jury was limited to only white men. As specified in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers is a fundamental right of defendants in criminal trials. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed by President Eisenhower was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote and all citizens have equal rights, and the right to serve as jurors. For years women were neglected as jurors. The female perspective, like the contributions of diverse racial and social groups, is so important that the Court wrote that "the exclusion of women from jury panels may at times be highly prejudicial to the defendants" (Fowler, 2005). The right to serve on a jury was gradually extended to minorities and women, a process that Supreme Court addressed in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994). In these cases the Court declared that equal protection clause prohibits prosecutors from eliminating jurors based on race or gender (Neubauer & Fradella,
Juror number eight, in the movie, displays many of the characteristics of a critical thinking compared with other jurors. He “strive for understanding, keeps the curiosity alive, remain patient and ready to invest time to overcome confusion” (Ruggiero, 2012, p.21). He asks for more consideration of the case and to “talk for a while.” Not only that, but he challenges the validity of all evidence. In this case, time and dialogue are the most important elements in the process of evaluating the argument based on the …show more content…
Such opinion can have some serious disadvantages, because will be hard to separate discerning facts from suppositions. For example, they may ignore admissible evidence; or they could use their feelings as information. According to Neubauer & Fradella, (2011) evidence represent anything used to prove or disprove the existence of the fact. For the most part, evidence can be split into two categories: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence establishes the existence of a fact in question without relying on inference, like eyewitness testimony, such as the testimony of the “old lady “ from cross the street that sworn that she saw the defendant killed his father. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that is offered to establish the likelihood of a fact that is in question, but by inference, such as the knife found at the crime scene. Because the defendant had a similar knife, most of the jurors concluded that the defendant committed the crime. A good defense lawyer would challenge the strength of the evidence presented to create the reasonable doubt, but in this case, the burden of persuasion revolves around critical analysis of the evidence in the jury room. During the course of the debate, by …show more content…
Initially, the service in the jury was limited to only white men. As specified in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers is a fundamental right of defendants in criminal trials. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed by President Eisenhower was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote and all citizens have equal rights, and the right to serve as jurors. For years women were neglected as jurors. The female perspective, like the contributions of diverse racial and social groups, is so important that the Court wrote that "the exclusion of women from jury panels may at times be highly prejudicial to the defendants" (Fowler, 2005). The right to serve on a jury was gradually extended to minorities and women, a process that Supreme Court addressed in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994). In these cases the Court declared that equal protection clause prohibits prosecutors from eliminating jurors based on race or gender (Neubauer & Fradella,