Importance Of The Jury In 12 Angry Men

In 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, he expresses his opinion of democracy through the twelve jurors’ dialogue and explains why he thinks it is good that democracy allows everyone a say in the law. He uses theme in his writing. On page 101, it states, “Just remember we have a first degree murder charge here. If we vote ‘guilty’ we send the accused to the electric chair.

If Canada had the death penalty an inmate by the name of Steven Truscott would have been put to death for a crime he did not commit. Steven was sentenced to be hung in 1959 (when Canada still had the death penalty), at the young age of 14 for the murder of Lynn Harper, a 12-year old girl that was Steven’s classmate. He was Canada 's youngest ever to be on death row. Forty years later the Courts are now questioning if they had made a mistake and put an innocent man in jail. Partly because of this case, Canadians abolished the death penalty.

The jurors contradict themselves by starting off saying one thing and then later they say or do the exact opposite. Juror number seven in the play contradicted himself at the very beginning by saying the nineteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing his father in the stomach was completely quilty (Rose 315). The only reason Juror seven sided with the defendant being guilty at the beginning is because he didn’t want to sit in on the court case for a long time period because he had tickets for a baseball game which he thought was more of a priority than jury duty. He accused him of being guilty thinking everyone else would as well, therefore the case would end much earlier. He then contradicted himself by saying he was guilty for the longest time and then towards the end he was the only one out of a few others who said he was not guilty.

The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.

The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the

It is not known if the boy is actually guilty or innocent, it will always remain hidden with the boy. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt, and this is how the whole debate started when the jury eight had a reasonable doubt about the whole incident of the boy killing his father and the witnesses. Juror eight who entered in the trial with an open mind finally managed to convince the others to do so. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. The movie also reflects the prevailing sexism of America in the 1950’s.

12 Angry men is about 12 jury members and a foreman who are trying to determine if a boy is innocent or guilty. The case is about a boy who allegedly killed his father. All of the Jurors thought the boy with guilty but one, which was number 8. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew all the evidence so, they would be sure before they send a boy to jail. Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty.

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.

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. I want to begin by looking at juror member 8, our protagonist, the juror who from the start pleads that the dedendant is not

When Dahl first begins the book, on the very first page, he talks about a key point everyone should know. The democratic form of government would not have worked, so a republic form of government was much needed. The whole ideal of the the Democratic Party is that that do care about how much money someone has, religion they follow, and arms. The often tend to help minorities, as well as groups that that are unpopular. Republicans on the other hand focus more on helping defensive issues, gaining profit, bringing more money for military, and fully support the police force.

The conflict between the parties is weakening the power of our national government because without Congress working together to create laws they are opposing each other. Even though this opposition may weaken us it is one of Congress 's’ implied powers. An implied power is a power that is practically given to the federal government, also known as an elastic clause. Congress’ arguments on gun control is wasting time, while they are arguing over something that may not ever be changed rather that passing new reasonable laws that can strengthen our country. The Democratic sit in was overall a failure at moving any

The lawyers were a type of Aristocrat and he held them on a different scale. He was impressed with our system of Justice of the Peace. The local government acts as a school for democracy, and makes people join offices. Alexis believed that democracy trickles up rather than down. Freedom of Press is important to a democracy, but he thought if it becomes too powerful it can become a threat to democracy.

Congressional term limits have been what restricted the amount of time that anyone can work in office whether it be to a representative, senator, or even the president. People have debated over keeping or losing the term limits, since each come with their own benefits and faults at the same time. In the argument for term limits, some may argue that they are necessary because, “Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves” (Weeks). The validity in this statement proves to be one of the strongest arguments because the creation of laws is mean to serve all people, and if the people in office had complete immunity, it would serve unfair and unjust to the rest of society. For this reason, it always will make those in office consider how impactful and

They believed that because people are instinctively selfish, that people would have a hard time coexisting in a land where all people were supposed to be treated equal. Though the government was created to aid the people, it was also established to teach the people how to “live properly”. The fact that the constitution was written in the mindset that people needed to be, in a sense, controlled is was and remains a controversial topic. Many view the constitution’s favor for the rich, white, and male property owners was not so much of an “easier way to unify a nation” but more of a list of who it was going to be more desireable to govern. These facts aside, in order to instill equality to a newlywed nation, the people were given some basic human rights and the power to choose who was going to represent them in order to still make sure that the people were still the basis of the new government while still having control over them.