12 Angry MenThis essay 12 Angry Men is available for you on Essays24.com! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essays24.com - full papers database.
Autor: anton • November 19, 2010 • 4,106 Words (17 Pages) • 1,840 Views
The following report will go into detail about the movie 12 angry men and how the current Jury system operates. It will list all the key turning points, and incorporate how the movie can be portrayed into the real life struggles of the current jury system.
Not only will this report be based on the movie 12 angry men but will also go into detail how whether or not the current jury system within Queensland is beneficial to the community. It discusses why the unanimous verdict must stay for it to be beneficial, and other possible alternatives to the current system.
2. Overview of the movie 12 Angry Men
The Movie 12 Angry Men was originally released in 1957, and later released in 1997. Both the movies have similar script lines, but have different actors. Along these lines the characters in the 1997 movie that was directed by William Friedkin, goes deeper into the jury system, and how it operates. Although both have very similar dialogs, the later the casting members are from different racial backgrounds. The following Report will go into detail about the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men
The Plot is based around twelve jury members who have to decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy, accused of murdering his father. The movie does not show the trial itself, but rather the way the jury system operators and the issues that surround jury members, and how the evidence can be misleading.
Once the Judge has given her final say, "It now becomes your duty to separate fact from fiction... you find the defendant guilty, the bench will not entertain mercy, bare in mind he could face the death sentence" As the jury members entered that jury room to decide the fate of the accused, many of the jury members talk about other subjects rather than the trail itself. One talks about the baseball, others talk about their careers.
As the Jury were, delivering their verdict, all but one returned a guilty response. It is apparent that most of the jury members have a personal prejudice that hinders their verdict bearing. When Juror 8 is questioned on his verdict that being not guilty his response was "I don't know but I need to hear more before sending a boy of to die"
There were eight key turning points in where the jurors changed their verdict to not guilty; this was based on the creditability of the evidence.
There are four main pieces of evidence that are discussed and disputed in the jury room. These 4 pieces of evidence each bring weight to a juror's repose and verdict. However, throughout the movie one juror will not entertain that the accused may not have committed the murder.
There are 4 pieces of evidence brings together the movie, and in the jury room this evidence is discussed and disputed.
The four items are as follows.
2.2 The Evidence
2.2.1 The Knife: The Knife plays a key part in several key turning points, and will be used for both for and against the defendant throughout the jury's deliberations. However the 1st time that the evidence around the knife is put forward for the case of guilty. It's Creditability as a key piece of evidence is lowered. The key points around the knife were that
1. The knife was allegedly one of a kind. This was said by the Service attendant who sold the knife to the boy.
2. The Accused Showed the 3 of his friends the knife after he brought it at around 8.45 pm
3. The Accused Lost the knife sometime between 11.30 pm and when arrested. The knife allegedly fell through a hole in the accused pants pocket.
2.2.2 Two Witnesses to the murder:
188.8.131.52 1st Witness was a woman who claims to have seen the accused stab his father. This was seen at around 12.10 am threw the open window of a passing crate train, 60 feet away.
184.108.40.206 2nd Witness was an Elderly man, who lived beneath the accused apartment.
1. Claims to have heard the accused yell out "I'm going to kill you" then hearing a thump on the floor, this was around 12.10 2. Claims to have seen the have seen the accused run down the stairway. He claims to have heard and seen all this within 15 seconds
Both the witnesses' statements correspond with the time.
2.2.3 The accused Alibi: He claimed to have left home at around 11.30 and got home at around 3 am in which that time claims to have seen a movie marathon but could not remember which ones he had seen. Nevertheless, later in Court when on the stand he could remember.
2.3 Key Turning Points
1. The Producing of the Knife: Jury The number 3 brings forward the knife issue. In addition, basis his first assumptions of guilt around the knife. Juror number 8 requests that the knife be brought into the jury room. Juror3 "We all know what the knife looks, so why do we need to see it again. In addition, Jury member number 4 explains all the key points mentioned in 2.2.1. When the knife is brought into the Jury room. Juror4 walks around and puts the knife into the table in front of Juror8 and continues his arguments. Juror8 says it's possible that a different knife was used. Juror3 Says "I say it's not possible. It is then that Juror8 produces an exact copy of the knife and puts it into the table next to the other one. The Jury start to yell and are confused by this new piece of evidence being introduced, thus the creditably of the knife is lowered(2.2.2. 1) The Jury members say that it is illegal to buy the switch knife and want to know where he brought it. However in revealing where he brought the knife Juror8 indivertibly and not directly admits to breaking another law, but not directly. The jury act 1995 part 8 69A section 1 Inquiries by juror about accused prohibited stipulates that a jury member can-not inquire about the case "1A person who has been sworn as a juror in a criminal trial must not inquire about the defendant t". As Juror8 admits buying the knife from a pawnshop in the boy's neighbourhood, he has broken that law. With this in mind, if the court had known or was told about this, the court would have to declare a mistrial.
Many of the members disagree with the second knife being brought into the equation. Many of those members contradict themselves, "there could be 10 knives like that, and so what does that prove'. Producing the knife was the first step in convincing the other members