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

    Another important fact was the defendant’s ethnicity and low socioeconomic class. Most of the jurors were mostly middle-aged, white males from the middle-class status. These descriptions were different from the defendants, which made it difficult for the jurors to be sympathetic to the defendant. Juror #5, however, had experience living in a slum area, and so he could sympathize a little for the young man, and after several votes, he voted “not guilty” for the defendant. This example exhibits that if the juror are similar, the juror would tend to sympathize with the…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There was one juror who refused to side with all the vast majority of other guilty verdicts causing them to stay and talk about the issue at hand. In my opinion, majority sided guilty because it was the easiest way to go and they have families to get back to, bills to pay, and money to be made outside of the courtroom. This situation could have had majority influence if it were not for that one juror saying not guilty. The majority influence is the opposite of minority influence, in which social pressure exerted by the larger portion of the group, directed toward individual members and smaller fractions with the group. In the beginning they asked members of the jury how they felt and you could tell they were unsure but as soon as other men started raising their hands it became clear that they were displaying conformity.…

    • 1174 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rather than giving the boys an experienced defense attorney, the court supplied a Tennessee real estate lawyer that was unfamiliar with the courts of Alabama. Due to this, the court essentially doomed the defendants from the beginning as they would never be able to erect a solid defense case with a lawyer that was both unfamiliar with defense law and Alabama law. Finally, their right to the Sixth Amendment was undermined due to the fact that the court did not provide an impartial jury. An impartial jury is defined as a representative of the community and can not intentionally exclude distinct groups, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and…

    • 1847 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Terry Edwards Trial

    • 680 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Then the prosecution team gets to interview the jury and has the power to kick some out, so there will be no biased votes. For instance if the suspect is a police officer and one person on the jury is a former police offcier, they will be excused because they might vote in favor just cause of their job. Another reason a person may be kicked off the jury is if they have former connections with them. SO what does this have to do with this case? From these three pieces of evidence, we can clearly see that people now and in the past have manipulated court scenes, juries, and lawyers just to prosecute lives that are innocent.…

    • 680 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Juror eight appealed to the jury’s values. He told a story about the innocent boy (innocent when he was young) being harmed as he was growing up. The boy was beaten by his dad when he was young. 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).…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The justice system of America is constantly criticized for being unfair. The establishment of an unfair justice system is due to bias and bigotry. The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows the prejudices of the system as twelve different men, from different past, must concur and make a verdict on a murder case. The author indicates that the justice system is unfair through biases portrayed in the juror’s dialogue, past history, and attitude in making a verdict.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The majority of the jurors did not follow ‘innocent until proven guilty’, rather, they worked the opposite way. This is due to their personal biases. Under Juror 8’s influence, the men began ’talking for an hour’ using ‘reasonable doubt’, thus allowing the men to reach a sensible conclusion. This may have otherwise cost the life of a minor. The film exposes through Juror 8 that the superficial evidence should be dismissed to allow for deeper analysis of the case.…

    • 661 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    social science research methodology, and understanding of legal procedure and terminology.” (Kane, 2016) Trial consultants who are members of the ASTC must abide by the professional code of conducts. The ASTC professional codes include ethical principles, professional standards, and practice guidelines (ASTC, 2016). According to these codes trial consultants must work for only one side of the case, follow the existing research practices, methodologies, and statistical method, and strive to provide pro bono services when possible (Andrews, 2005).…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    12 Angry Men is a compelling and profound film produced in 1957 directed by Sidney Lumet. This film set in a single room with just twelve cast member, these twelve play a jury called together to judge a murder case involving a young boy who is accused of murdering his father. The jury is charged with coming to a unanimous decision because the punishment is death penalty. Throughout the movie the cast is never referred to by name, rather by their jury numbers offering the viewer an air of mystery and intrigue. The film further shows its artistic talent by offering not only a story to challenge the mind but also the audience’s ethical beliefs.…

    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Set in New York, 12 Angry Men follows twelve jurors as they decide whether or not a young 18-year-old Hispanic boy is guilty for stabbing his father in the chest. In a rather small room, the jurors must reach a unanimous decision, and if there is ‘reasonable doubt,’ the young boy will be freed. In one of the initial scenes, a vote is facilitated where 11 jurors find him guilty, and one juror, juror 8 votes that he is not guilty. He expresses to the group that a discussion needs to be made prior to sending a young boy to the death penalty. There is a lack of evidence which supports why the young 18-year-old boy stabbed his father and in turn leaves some of the minds of the jurors in a place where they are unable to convict within moral certainty.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One of the main topics that was displayed in the movie was conformity. Conformity can be described as the act of changing one’s behavior to fit in with a group (Crutchfield, 1955). After the closing arguments of the trial, deliberations by the jurors begin on whether the boy is guilty or not. As the jurors make themselves comfortable in the jury room, casual exchanges are made between the jurors. This is where the first step of conformity takes place.…

    • 884 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Their choice would either send an 18-year-old Hispanic man to death or set him free. When the twelve men were locked in the deliberation room, the jury foreman acted as the facilitator for the group. It was the jury foreman that got everyone focused for the initial vote. It was important get everyone focused because the group was busy discussing their personal life, occupations, and their future plans. They were not discussing the case because they assumed everyone would vote the same.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When he threatens to hang the jury his emotions finally begin to boil over. Through introspection he finds himself uncomfortably faced with his own emotional trauma over the state of his relationship with his son. Most, even if capable of reaching this point, would likely leave it there but Juror 3 ventures deeper into his own anguish and finds his bias, where again many would simply stop. Instead he is able to look beyond it, see how it has blinded him, put it aside, and vote not guilty. Without this difficult and painful effort the jury would likely have been hung, a retrial called, and the defendant executed.…

    • 767 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Several of them was hesitate on raising their hand at the beginning but followed the rest of voting guilty with no reasoning. They wanted juror 8 to agree with the decision so the trial can be an easy one and the defendant could get sentenced to the death penalty. “Oh boy it’s always one” “What is there to talk about” “how come you voted not guilty” was stated by different jurors after the disagreement. Juror 10 stated to juror 8 “we don’t owe him a thing, he got a fair trial, what do you think that trial cost? He is lucky he got…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, juror number eight was able to see past the stereotypes attached to the defendant. Free of bias and believed in fairness and justice. He said, “It doesn’t matter what kind of person he is…we owe him a few words is all.” He understood that prejudice endangers the process of a fair trial and makes a profound statement when he said, it’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. The jury was able to overcome their prejudice and stereotyping to recognize the gravity of their purpose.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays

Related Topics