The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote.
Although the rationale of peremptory challenges, ironically, would be for the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of any potentially biased jurors, lawyers may instead use their peremptory challenges to form a jury that would pass a more favourable verdict. As lawyers are also not required to explain their decisions in striking out jurors in most cases, the makeup of the jury can thus be heavily imbalanced. However, as a judge would be required to not let any preconceived bias affect the administering of justice, the accused would hence receive a fairer treatment as compared to juries that might have any bias towards either the prosecution or the defendant. With juries also not being required to explain their decisions, any bias that the jury might have would not be easily found and challenged. Especially in cases where the death penalty is concerned, it is all the more important that juries mete out a fair verdict.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life…He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations. Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points.
The jurors need to sentence a young man being accused of murder; all 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision if they decide he’s guilty he’s be executed. If he’s declared innocent he walks free. The film essentially boils down into one question. What is the value of human life? The individual jurors each have their own biases which are formed from their past experiences.
In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room and they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. As they are debating back and forth, the reader begins to realize that each juror brings their own judgement of the world and their own biases. The viewer can see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities, but all of their personalities intertwine with each other to create a perfect character balance for a great movie. Juror 10 is a closed minded older man.
The jurors are given the case on a hot day in downtown New York where tempers are running high with the heat. The jurors have to sort “facts from fancy” and come to an unanimous decision meaning they all have to vote guilty or not guilty. The juror I am going to discuss is the 8th juror, he was the only person to vote not guilty. I will discuss his character, how he effects the course of justice and how does he illustrate the theme of the play. I believe that the 8th juror is the most interesting juror of the twelve because in a way he is the perfect juror and represents the boy’s good luck.
Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60).
The success of jury trial largely depends on how the institution plays its role in practice. It can either help the court, or can severely harm its credibility and take the judiciary to worse condition. He also observed that, if the rules are enforced and the procedures implemented justly and fairly, then the jury system will have a better chance of
The jury deciding the final verdict of a defendant is another problem in the courts. In their article, "Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology" Brian Bornstein and Edie Greene reveal that the court "requires ordinary citizens who lack legal training to hear evidence, make sense of conflicting facts, and apply legal rules to reach a verdict" (Bornstein and Greene 63). Jury decision making poses a problem because ordinary people are required to sort evidence and reach a verdict, which all jurors may not agree with. The reasons of how a judge interprets the Constitution and a jury making the final verdict in a case add to the cause of why the courts are the most problematic component in the criminal justice
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ESSAY Issues of bias in the judiciary often raise the question of whether South Africa should reinstate the jury system. This question can be approached from different angles. This essay sets out to explain the difference between a jury and bench trial and the pro’s and con’s of using each type of trial. An argument in favour or against the reinstatement of the jury system using theories as a basis to work will be addressed while also analyzing the socio political and economic factors that would affect the argument.