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
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