“An important and fundamental premise of the American judicial system is the presumption of innocence, that is until proven guilty” -DMX. The judicial system was created to try and give defendants a fair trial. Twelve Angry Men evaluates a judicial system that is naturally vulnerable to individual human bias and error and is therefore flawed. The system is flawed because the government cannot control what is going on in someone's life, how someone perceives something, and what someone's predispositions of a situation are.
When a jury gets chosen no one knows what other things are happening in their lives. If a juror has somewhere to be or something to take care of they might rush the verdict making it an unfair trial. Juror #7 walks into the meeting and almost immediately says “This better be fast.' I've got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight” complaining that he “must be the only guy in the whole world who hasn't seen it yet” (Rose) He comes into the meeting with a closed mind, he’s has somewhere to be and doesn’t want the trial getting in the way. Juror #7 is less likely to listen to any points contradicting his ideas because he just wants the trial to be over.
When someone like Juror #11 is out on a jury they already have a small amount of bias because of their history. If an immigrant is put on a jury for a case against an immigrant they're more likely to chose the verdict of not guilty. Juror 11 makes sure to see all sides of the argument and very clearly doesn't believe the old man when he brings up the point that the old man “can only walk very slowly. They had to help him into the witness chair.” Juror 11 sees both sides of the arguments but always come back to the verdict of not guilty, and always sticks to his point even if there are compelling arguments for guilty.
Juror Number 10 comes into the meeting with bad feelings about people that live in the slums meaning he is less likely to change his mind about the state of the case. Juror Number 10 comes into the meeting with bad feelings about people that live in the slums meaning he is less likely to change his mind about the state of the case: “I don't mind telling you this, mister. We don't owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? You know what that trial cost? He's lucky he got it. Look, we're all grownups here. You're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.” From the start of the trial, he already believes he is guilty just because of his background. Juror 10 fights everyone else on the jury and gets angry when they don't have the same opinions, making him biased against the defendant.
Some may say that the jury system is not biased because it takes everyone's values into consideration making the trial fairer, even if that is true people with different opinions can be bullied into having the same thoughts as the group. For example, if someone is easily swayed it could throw the whole trial. Number 3 has a rock hard opinion and doesn't want it to be changed. He argues that the rest of the jury isn't “going to intimidate me!” that he's “entitled to my opinion! It's gonna be a hung jury! That's it!” Juror #8 goes on to intimidate him even more stating “there's nothing we can do about that, except hope that some night, maybe in a few months you'll get some sleep’” When one Jury member was left with the opinion of guilty the rest of them were able to sway his opinion and the verdict became not guilty. This is a product of human error because it's hard to be pushed out of the group, the jury knows how to get him to change his opinion and are willing to possibly throw the case.
The American Jury System is naturally flawed because opinions are easily swayed and changed based on the popular group opinion, making the system easily biased and unfair. The system was created to bring justice and a chance for a fair trial. Having someone with a strong bias against the defendant on a jury can impact the community because someone can be found guilty or not guilty based on someone's preexisting feelings sending an innocent man to jail or setting a guilty man free. The play Twelve Angry Men explores these ideas because it gives the reader background on the jury members and shows how they come into the meeting with pre-existing bias and feelings toward the defendant and society itself. The play also examines how easily ideas can be swayed by a group, and what that means for the outcome of a trial.
When a jury gets chosen no one knows what other things are happening in their lives. If a juror has somewhere to be or something to take care of they might rush the verdict making it an unfair trial. Juror #7 walks into the meeting and almost immediately says “This better be fast.' I've got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight” complaining that he “must be the only guy in the whole world who hasn't seen it yet” (Rose) He comes into the meeting with a closed mind, he’s has somewhere to be and doesn’t want the trial getting in the way. Juror #7 is less likely to listen to any points contradicting his ideas because he just wants the trial to be over.
When someone like Juror #11 is out on a jury they already have a small amount of bias because of their history. If an immigrant is put on a jury for a case against an immigrant they're more likely to chose the verdict of not guilty. Juror 11 makes sure to see all sides of the argument and very clearly doesn't believe the old man when he brings up the point that the old man “can only walk very slowly. They had to help him into the witness chair.” Juror 11 sees both sides of the arguments but always come back to the verdict of not guilty, and always sticks to his point even if there are compelling arguments for guilty.
Juror Number 10 comes into the meeting with bad feelings about people that live in the slums meaning he is less likely to change his mind about the state of the case. Juror Number 10 comes into the meeting with bad feelings about people that live in the slums meaning he is less likely to change his mind about the state of the case: “I don't mind telling you this, mister. We don't owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? You know what that trial cost? He's lucky he got it. Look, we're all grownups here. You're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.” From the start of the trial, he already believes he is guilty just because of his background. Juror 10 fights everyone else on the jury and gets angry when they don't have the same opinions, making him biased against the defendant.
Some may say that the jury system is not biased because it takes everyone's values into consideration making the trial fairer, even if that is true people with different opinions can be bullied into having the same thoughts as the group. For example, if someone is easily swayed it could throw the whole trial. Number 3 has a rock hard opinion and doesn't want it to be changed. He argues that the rest of the jury isn't “going to intimidate me!” that he's “entitled to my opinion! It's gonna be a hung jury! That's it!” Juror #8 goes on to intimidate him even more stating “there's nothing we can do about that, except hope that some night, maybe in a few months you'll get some sleep’” When one Jury member was left with the opinion of guilty the rest of them were able to sway his opinion and the verdict became not guilty. This is a product of human error because it's hard to be pushed out of the group, the jury knows how to get him to change his opinion and are willing to possibly throw the case.
The American Jury System is naturally flawed because opinions are easily swayed and changed based on the popular group opinion, making the system easily biased and unfair. The system was created to bring justice and a chance for a fair trial. Having someone with a strong bias against the defendant on a jury can impact the community because someone can be found guilty or not guilty based on someone's preexisting feelings sending an innocent man to jail or setting a guilty man free. The play Twelve Angry Men explores these ideas because it gives the reader background on the jury members and shows how they come into the meeting with pre-existing bias and feelings toward the defendant and society itself. The play also examines how easily ideas can be swayed by a group, and what that means for the outcome of a trial.
Comments
Post a Comment