The Jury And The Deliberation Process In 12 Angry Men

Great Essays
The movie 12 Angry Men really gave me a good understanding of the 6th amendment by providing me with an in depth look into the jury and the deliberation process. The 6th amendment gives everyone the right to being tried by an impartial jury of their peers who are in charge of deciding the verdict. This movie raised a lot of concerns for me because the jury in this movie was not what I would consider to be impartial, nor did I think this jury presumed this boy innocent until proven guilty(burden of proof). What I mean by that is, right when the jurors got into the deliberation room and took a vote right away, 11 out of 12 people found the defendant guilty before even discussing any facts …show more content…
The boy who’s fate was in their hands was a 19 year old boy living in a poor area of New York who was on trial for murdering his father. This jury right from the beginning besides for juror #8 vote guilty right when they get into the jury room. This is nerve-wracking because this boy if found guilty, was going to be sentenced to death and 11 out of the 12 jurors vote guilty without even being in the jury room for five minutes. This is definitely an example of a constitutional issue because if it was not for juror #8, the boy whom was in deed innocent based on the facts of the case, would have been put to death by a jury whom just wanted to get the vote over with, so that they could get out of that very hot jury …show more content…
One example of this was when juror #3 says, “Six days. They should have finished it in two. Talk, talk, talk. Did you ever hear so much talk about nothing?”. Then juror #2 responds, “TWO (nervously laughing). Well … I guess … they’re entitled”. This boy’s life is in jeopardy and these men are joking about why the case took so long. the most noted argument in my mind was after every single juror voted guilty in the first vote except for juror #8 who voted not guilty. This wasn 't because he definitely thought the boy was not guilty, he said he didn 't know whether he was or not which is considered a reasonable doubt. This set a lot of the jurors off because a lot of them just wanted everything to be done so they could go home. Other jurors just couldn 't believe and got mad that juror #8 voted not guilty. Once juror #8 convinces the rest of the jury to discuss it further before they make a decision, the personal bias of some of the jurors really came out. For example juror #10 comes out and says, “I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he? You know what that trial cost? He’s lucky he got it. Look, we’re all grownups here. You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Juror eight did a tremendous job of appealing to the emotions of the others; as his approach changes the minds of the jurors. For example, Juror number nine says “this gentleman has been standing alone against us, he doesn’t say the boy isn’t guilty, he just isn’t sure” (12 angry men 1957). This statement by juror nine gives the viewers an understanding on how good juror eight appealed to the emotions of the others. He did not say that the boy wasn’t guilty; he provided evidence, and showed the others that there are possibilities that the boy did not kill his father. The discussion continues as they bring up the testimony of the witnesses of the murder.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    12 Angry Men Reflection

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The film “12 angry men” takes place in a courthouse in New York City. There is a trial going on involving a boy that is being charged for murdering his father. His sentence if guilty is the electric chair. The only thing that is deciding his fate, is the jury 's verdict. Guilty or non-guilty?…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He also does not have a lot of power in the room, which contributes to his guilty vote. When the foreman said, “All those voting “guilty” raise your hands,” Juror #2 immediately looks around the room and saw some hands raise and then raises his own hand (11). Because of his unassertive personality, he is vulnerable to the other juror’s opinions. Although he is extremely timid, he starts to gain his voice because he is starting to get tired of being pushed aside by Juror #3 and begins to participate…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” (12 Angry Men). On the outside, he is a golden yellow because he gave a sense of hope for the kid that he was innocent through the middle of it all. Jurors that simply went off of their gut were repulsive to him. He didn’t understand as to why they didn’t want to make a change in the case.…

    • 1288 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    12 Angry Men Movie Clip (Architect) From the beginning, the Architect was the only person who believed that there was reasonable doubt, which cause him to stand along. He stated and consistently repeated throughout several scenes that he didn’t know whether or not the boy’s story is true or not which led him to be t he only person to vote not guilty. After a series of several voting attempts, the Architect continued to challenge the jurors locked in thinking which stimulated other to think outside the box and new question emerged. Slowly, other juror members begin to change their mind and vote not guilty as well. His leadership style proved to be very consistent as he confronted others however when necessary and remained very direct, honest…

    • 1384 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is not a permanent solution though, and people go back to thinking that he is innocent. As a result he only gets more angry with juror eight and makes him think that the kid is guilty. Overall, juror number three is an angry man who only believes what he’s told himself to make him feel better. He only appreciates the opinions that he has believed all his life. He yells at people a lot when someone disagrees with him.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why would he lie? What’s he got to gain, Nine: Attention maybe?” Eight makes a good statement when saying that the Old man’s view doesn’t make sense due to the El train blocking his view and hearing. Nine tends to agree with Eight saying that the old ma In the beginning of the play almost every Juror in the room picks “Guilty” except for Juror Eight. He believes that the boy is “Not-Guilty” saying that the evidence is somewhat false. Of course the other Jurors don’t believe it.…

    • 608 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Our judicial system is one that influences people of all walks of life and it has influenced people for generations, there is no escaping it. In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 was able to convince the other jurors to believe that the boy was innocent, he convinced Juror #4, who then said, “I’m sorry. I’m convinced. I don’t think I’m wrong often but I guess I was this once. There is a reasonable doubt in my mind.” (Rose 62) Juror #8 was able to argue using the facts to persuade his fellow jurors to see the boy as innocent so that they did not send an innocent man to his death.…

    • 1680 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    The Skeptical one stayed on the not responsible side until the very last discussion day due to doubts. The Angry one yelled a lot and was very passionate. He did end up helping convince jurors but it was also hard to follow him since everyone else was wrong in his eyes. In 12 Angry Men, Juror #3 was not receptive to anyone else’s ideas. He has his opinion and is unwilling or unable to discuss with others.…

    • 1443 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He is racism, not proper thinker, abusive, prejudice, arrogant, insensitive and biased. Most of jurors doesn't like him based on his opinion and speech was disturbs the rest of juror. Changes his mind when all the others jurors are against him and specifically when jury 4 tells him to keep quite and not to speak. Juror 11 was interested to be a jury because he has witnessed great injustices that happen before. He was described as a good decision maker, rational thinker, supportive, team player, open-minded, agreeable and good natured.…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics