12 Angry Men
"12 Angry Men" is a 1957 drama, which depicts jury deliberations in a murder case. It is a primer on what to do and what not to do when deliberating as a juror. The film shows the dynamics of jury deliberations: the anger, the false starts, the personality conflicts, the joint effort and the functioning of several minds together to seek out the truth. The film irrevocably alters one's perceptions of the trial by jury process. The defendant (John Savoca) is on trial for pre-meditated murder. He will be sent to the chair if a unanimous verdict of guilty is returned. Inside the jury room, Juror No. 1 (Martin Balsam) tries to impose order in his capacity as Foreman. He doesn't particularly wish to shoulder this burden but, if he must, he'll try to discharge his duties responsibly. With all assembled the mood suggests that an immediate vote should be held. The first vote is 11 guilty and 1 not guilty. Juror No. 8, Henry Fonda states that he couldn't vote guilty simply because there is reasonable doubt in his mind. Two of the jurors exploded in disbelieving anger, amazed that any reasonable man could harbor the slightest uncertainty. The decision is then made that all should explain their choice of decision. Their feeling
They just accepted the prosecution's case at face value. The jurors would not want to be treated the same way in which they were treating the defendant. They were treating the defendant unequally and according to the Egalitarians this king of behavior is immoral and wrong. Another is angry at his son who is the same age as the defendant and votes to convict as an expression of his anger. They were not open-minded, they didn't want to listen to others and they blamed the defendant carelessly. After a secret ballot, the foreman reads out the results; amazingly another voted not guilty. As long as they were not being put to death it didn't matter to them. The jurors made no searching inquiry into the facts presented at the trial. They took what was given to them at face value and gave it no further considerations. Stunned and somewhat insulted by his forethought the jurors erupt in a babble of opposition. 8 because he had a switchblade just like the supposedly unique knife used in the killing. Their actions were wrong or immoral. All human beings should be treated equally no matter what the situation is. The jurors would not want the same thing to happen in similar situations especially if the situation involved them.
Common topics in this essay:
Justice Fairness,
Henry Fonda,
,
Martin Balsam,
John Savoca,
EG Marshall,
Ed Begley,
taking action,
person taking action,
mind jurors,
didn't matter,
reasonable doubt,
person taking,
treating defendant,
juror 8,
jury deliberations,
|
Acceptance Essays
