People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four. This happened while the vote was nine to three, nine voted innocent and three voted guilty. Three and four turned their backs towards number ten because they disagreed on why they thought the boy was guilty. Juror number ten was an ill-mannered man who was very bigot. He was bitter and didn’t value any human life except his own.
Rotten kid! You work your heart out” (Twelve Angry Men). Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past.
As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages. In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
12 Angry Men and To Kill a Mockingbird depict trials that expose the flaws of the American judiciary system in the fact that juries are not always consisted of the defendant 's peers, judges and juries both have racist views, and juries are influenced by moral cowardice. Trials held in America at the time of these two productions were never fair to African Americans because of the makeup, views, and general nature of juries. Juries never could fully understand the views and motives of the defendant because they were not consisted of the defendant’s peers. In To Kill A Mockingbird, Tom Robinson was convicted by a jury made up of middle-aged, white men, so they were unable to understand and view the case from Tom’s point of view. When talking to Scout, Atticus says that most people in Maycomb believe that white people are superior to black people, and that is how it is in court as well.
The falling action in the play is that almost all the jurors decided to switch their vote from guilty to innocent except Juror #3. Juror #3 was obstinate about switching his vote from guilty to innocent because he believed that even with all the evidence that was shown the defendant is still guilty in his eyes. The resolution of the play is that Juror #3 finally decided to switch his vote from guilty to innocent because he wanted to leave already. All the jurors
16, the jury had men dressed in the Cunningham’s formal wear, hinting that the men whom tried to kill the defendant Tom the night before, was in the jury. This just further proves my thoughts, because those that hate you, and or dislike you, will judge you with false accusations. Like Atticus( Scouts father) had once said “the court is as equal as its jury”. Bias can cause many uproars in the court, but a lack of evidence can cause the case to become confusing. Generally evidence is what sets the difference between a wide open case and a closed off one.
The justice looks like the major issue of the plot, as Abner’s actions are explained by himself and his family as a response to an insult. But it is clear the man’s logic is twisted; Abner Snopes provoked all incidents by himself to create a reason to excuse his desire for fires. The final scenes of the story suggest the justice was served, as the man was caught during his final crime. But this is also a complex situation, as other family members, who did not support Abner’s position directly, did not experience the improvement in their living conditions and even could be hurt or killed. The story starts with the description of a trial, where Abner Snopes was accused in burning of his neighbor’s barn.
Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty. Furthermore, when the picture of juror 3’s family falls out of his wallet and after he angrily rants to the men, he rips up the picture and begins to weep. When this is done it becomes obvious to the men how the difference in lifestyles affected all the entire day that they had endured. Furthermore, in seeing juror 3 release himself of his personal issues and the malaise he has towards his own family, the methods of groupthink are used and dismissed after each of the men decide their votes with their heart, and come to the conclusion presenting the young boy to be
Jurors for Justice? What if the justice system wasn’t as unbiased as you thought? Within the play Twelve Angry Men the justice system supposedly chose 12 men to give a fair verdict for a boy that supposedly murdered his own father but, instead some jurors have other plans, bias backgrounds, or predetermined decisions. One way Twelve Angry Men shows an unfair trial is the backgrounds of the jurors. An example of this is when Jurors Four and Ten talk about how kids from bad neighborhoods are very likely to become criminals (Rose 318).
Results from the trial lead many to believe justice wasn’t served. Defensive attorney John Adams used tactics to create confusion in the minds of the jurors so they could not be certain what actually took place. This proved to be very effective. Adam noted the crowd had been harassing the soldiers and also attacked them. There was no reliable evidence to back this up and it was generally believed, even if Preston was found guilty, he would be pardoned anyway.
A viewpoint when it comes to the major controversy of felon rights is often an biased opinion that originates from people as well as parents all alike and it is the argument that they as lawful citizens do not want violent offenders such as rapist, domestic offenders, and killers to be involved in voting whatsoever for the fact that these votes are ultimately determining what 's right or wrong for their country. The aspect that is often ignored and or unrealised in this situation is that violent offenders make up only a portion of those who get charged with felony offenses. According to statistics out of a list of twenty offenses that you can get charged as a felon for, violent crimes lies eighth on the list and even more substantial domestic violence and child abuse falls seventeenth on the list. So is it right to view all offenders the same way and hold limits on all as if they were exactly alike? Peter Dimond, an American economist, criticizes the system of economics that surrounds felons when he claims in the article “Should felons have the right to vote?” that to proceed from this issue “First, we need to recognize that felons aren’t necessarily villains – some may be victims themselves of an unfair judicial system, and even those that aren’t – those that have committed crimes deserving of felon status – should have their voices heard.