Many judges said the boy was guilty so mostly everyone said that too due to group pressure. Another scenario was when they voted by raising their hands, a lot of jurors later was not sure if the boy was guilty. They also looked around them to see who has their hands up. But when they voted on paper and it was anonymous, not all comply. Another example of conformity is when Jack Klugman, he used to be a slum kid, he did not say much at first and he seemed to be not sure about whether the boy was not guilty or guilty.
Phrases that he uses in order to give anger are for example; “There are many problems”, “one interrogates”, “this time of heightened concern”, “Do we really want?”, and many more of phrases and questions with the same tone. The pathos used is not very persuasive because of the lack of evidence, and the lack of back ground information. For the most part, Coates uses pathos as his supporting evidence. We can see this in the beginning of the article when he makes the audience question recent police actions as just. He continues by mentioning the names of suspects whom were killed by the police with a little bit of background information to make the audience feel anger towards the situations.
Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.
According to Prejean, taking responsibility for one’s actions is the first step towards atonement, yet through the vocalization of Ryan she questions if any further steps beyond “[sitting] in a room with all the people...harmed by [the] crime” are truly necessary (Ryan 232). When presenting Matthew Poncelet in Dead Man Walking, he is originally portrayed as a cold heartless killer, a bigot who “is not a person [but]... an animal” (Dead Man Walking). But through the progression of the film, he becomes pitiable, finally reaching full escalation when recognizing responsibility for his role in the crime. By arranging her piece so the climax is his confession, Prejean is able to create a sympathetic atmosphere among her audience, while entwining reminders of what led to this position, through the belief that he has suffered enough and resolves the situation through his acknowledgement of his wrongs to the victim’s families. Prejean presents her case against capital punishment citing “killing is wrong, no matter who does it” and that personal responsibility is the only appropriate punishment for these “monsters” (Dead Man Walking).
As an observer, it has been noted multiple times that prosecutors seek to solve a case by any means necessary. But countless times it has been found that you also will use unreliable or faulty resources without having the proper evidence and right resources in order to make a closing statement. Your desperation to solve a case in a quick and timely matter is just proof that you will take anyone’s word before checking the validity and reliability of the first time informants often times taking note of his desperation and use this in order to seek entry way into a resolution. I stand before you today and acknowledge the weight you have on your shoulders to convict and solve a case.
As it was a nation worldwide news that was all over tv. People around the country watching was shock of the decision, an debut that caught everybody eyes, that O.J Simpson should’ve been guilty. Because of how the court system work, it let a dangerous man walk out free. During the next morning of the murder, things went out of control, as police interviewed O.J Simpson.
People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.
Early in the movie all men, except one juror, number eight, agree that the boy is guilty without a doubt. In this case normative influencer took place which is going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted. Juror eight was the only person from the beginning of the deliberation to the end of it that thought the boy was innocent and he had to basically break down all the men to understand why it was true. Also some of the men did not care if the boy was a person who deserved a fair trial because in their eyes he was not like them and they knew people like his kind to be
A video was released during the trial to showing a police officer using the n-word numerous times while investigating the case. In one of the most important days of the trial OJ Simpson tried on the glove that the murder wore, it didn’t fit on his hand. The prosecution didn’t want Simpson to try on the glove. They argued that the glove had been soaked in blood and frozen and unfrozen as well. So this would mean that the glove would have shrunk when it got wet.
In 1957 there was a film entitled “12 Angry Men,’’ and it was a film about a son who supposedly, killed his father and the 12 men who are the jurors for the court case. Throughout the film, there is a lot of arguing and bickering but with the arguing, watchers learn more and more about all the characters and their views and beliefs and how they influence their votes. In the 1957 film, viewers learn the most about how jurors votes are shifted mostly by their, past experiences, unfamiliar knowledge, and their open minds. One of the most influential traits to change the jurors views is their past experiences with “slum boys. ’’(Film)
I, member of the jury, am choosing to vote Tom Robinson not guilty on the account of rapeing Mayella Ewell. All evidence that arose during the trial proves his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, I have to make a decision based on my moral values, not the societal norms of Maycomb County. During the trial, the witness testimonies were continually contradicted.