In the movie the Twelve-Men try to convict the 18 year old kid beyond a reasonable doubt. In the U.S. the verdict must be unanimous. The movie explores many techiniques as the difficulties encountered in the process, among the group of men that have all different personalities adds intensity and conflict to the case. The jury selection is very mixed and diverse between the jurors. Juror #1 is an assistant high school football coach, Juror #2 is unpretentious bank worker, Juror #3 antagonist businessman, Juror #4 Rational, self-assured , analytical only concerned with the facts, Juror #5 grew up in a rough violent Baltimore slum, Juror #6 house painter, tough but respectful, Juror #7 salesman, sportsfan, superficial indifferent to deliberations, Juror #8 architect, the first dissenter and protagonist, Juror #9 wise and observant old man , Juror #10 garage owner, a pushy and loud mouth , Juror #11 European watchmaker, Juror #12 wise cracking indecisive advertising executive. All of them differing in temperment the actors serve as a accurate representation of society. As the movie progesses many themes come into play justice, doubt, mercy, prejudice. The jur was made up of middle- aged white men and that was key they thought to convict the young man of murder. Racism plays a part to with all the jury being white it doesnt work and not fiar to the defendant who is a different color it hsould have been mixed so it would have been fair for both parties this movie showed the perfect examples of structure and watch what a jury must go through to make a decision it has alot of simmilarties in the court view. TMilligan 789
I agree to what TMilligan was saying. I also think the juror selection should of been equal instead of just being white. I also think that that racism plays a part in the type of jurors that were selected.
I agree that this movie did a good job demonstrating the structure of a jury and how it functions. It was crazy to watch as the doubt rose up in each of the jurors as the time went on. At first it does seem like the boy is guilty of killing his father, but when they look at everything that has been said about the case adding personal knowledge and experience they question it and find room for doubt. RMG789
I agree that race was a big part, but also they kept mentioning that he was "one of them." Meaning he was a boy from some type of lower class area, that may have had more crime than other places. Since they boy was from that particular "bad" area he was "like" those people, in other words a criminal and all people from there were. When in fact a few of the other jurors grew up there and werent accused of murder.' Guilt or innocence cannot be determined based on race, ethnicity, geographics, social status, education, age, gender, etc. EAW789
I agree to what TMilligan was saying. I also think the juror selection should of been equal instead of just being white. I also think that that racism plays a part in the type of jurors that were selected. Jimoh789
This movie is about twelve men that have to convict this young boy with a reasonable doubt these twelve men are all white and all have different views on the case. The boy is accused of killing his dad. When they took the vote eleven jurors voted him guilty and one juror voted not guilty. One juror is really trying to plead the young boy case. but the rest of the eleven jurors aren't trying to hear what he has to say. The second Juror talks real facts that say the old man was downstairs when he heard all of the actions. Juror three thinks that the boys story was off track and that the boy said he was at the movies but didn't remember anything about the movie. The one juror shouts out saying 'what about the old lady, she saw the whole thing.' but threw out the whole movie the one juror that was disagreeing with everybody was really trying to convince everyone that he was guilty. all of the juror had lots of key points that would hit it on the head that the young boy was guilty. Toward the end of the movie all of the jurors except one was really starting to feel like this boy might not be guilty. but I just think this movie was a perfect example of what we talked about in class. I feel the juror selection should of been even and not just all white people. Jimoh789
I agree they shouldn't have all been white males, but overall the group was extremely diverse in their individual background. The movie relates well to our class discussions and demonstrates how hard it is to have an impartial jury.I think that it is near impossible to have a jury that is completely impartial. Cases like this one would challenge jurors's core beliefs and make it hard to come to a decision with good conscience. RMG789
I agree I definitely forgot to mention the race factor. Not all of them should have been white males, there must have been some variety and have different opinions. NR789
I most definitely agree with everyone that having a jury full of the same demographics is completely unethical. This movie does however show its age. Today as we know, women and men of any race and ethnicity that is 18 and over and of US citizenship can serve as a juror. This brings in brings in they impartiality and they jury of out peers as pointed out by the Constitution. I do believe it is especially important to have the age range to provide for higher and lower ranges of intellectual thought processes, but that is just my opinion. EAW789
agree it was wrong to have a jury entirely consisting of jurors of the same race but I doubt there was much racial prejudice considering the kid on trial was white as was the victim. Other than race though all the jurors were different in background and I think those differences are what allowed the discussion of the facts from the case to be so effective.KAM789
I think this movie does a wonderful job of showing how difficult it can be to vote someone guilty or not guilty as part of a jury. The vote here has to be unanimous, and even the one person who votes not guilty causes a lot of stir among the jurors and sparks the debate that we see through out the film. I think it is good that they each put forth their reasons for thinking the man is guilty. They look at the facts from the case, past history, motive, and consider witnesses in attempts to change the man's mind. In the beginning, it seems that the jury is impartial. But as the movie progresses you see the prejudice begin to appear, like the juror making a comment about people from slums. Despite their prejudice, they attempt to look at things impartially. The jurors bring up points involving environment and how it effects a person and their choices, much like we did in class. Then the man who thinks the boy is innocent gives his case. He questions the eye witness account, he questions whether or not the boy actually killed his father with a knife, because he has one identical to it. Originally, eleven of the jurors think he is guilty because of facts, where he came from and the solid eye witness account. But with the second vote adds one more juror to not guilty. These men are not claiming that the man is guilty they are saying that they cannot condemn this man to the chair with unreasonable doubt because of flaws in the case. They talk about the witnesses, both older citizens, and the elevated train. The old man's testimony stated that the sound from the train made it impossible for the man to hear the argument, and supposed killing of the boy's father. All of the things that the jurors are discussing, or rather arguing about, are valid reasons to doubt the case against the boy. Juror 3, I believe, is particularly determined to find this boy guilty, begins to contradict himself particularly with the eyewitness account of the old man; he says that the man is old of course he gets confused, which is the argument of those who believe he is not guilty.This continues to happen for the remainder of the movie. It shows how important reasonable doubt is when deciding the rule to the case. It is funny to see how easily many of the men change their mind after listening to juror 8, the first to claim not guilty. It illustrates how much influence a group has on an individual's opinion and the idea of group think. It is very important that the views of everyone on the jury are heard, because it could change the entire case and keep a potentially innocent man from death. I think that even though there is a lot of prejudice and racism among the men in the jury it is fairy unbiased. I think that sometimes experiences, background and other things can be extremely effective in a jury for either sides of the case, but it can also become a problem.This movie gives you a jury with a mixed group, and even with their minor biases they put those aside to be open minded to all possibilities. Today, a jury would consist of jurors of many more backgrounds, male and female, political values and almost anything differences that you can imagine. One juror makes a good point, he says it is always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and wherever you run into it, it obscures the truth. I watched this movie looking at the psychological aspects, and I learned a lot more now thinking about the court system and the jury. RMG789
I agree that it was important for each person to share their opinions as to why they believed he was guilty before sentencing the boy to death. It was interesting to see how their opinions began to change as they listened to the man who said the boy was not guilty in the beginning and how more facts added up as the movie went on. -MH789
I agree with RMG789 on the fact that the third juror is determined to make the verdict come out as guilty for the boy. I think that one of the reasons he kept fighting for this is because someone close to him like his son maybe, which was probably in the same age group as the boy, did some wrong doing to him which led him to have a prejudice outlook to boys of the same age group. -CEM789
I thought it was interesting how fast the majority of the jurors were ready to condemn the kid to death just based on his background, the testimony of two people who weren’t actually close to the action, or just to save time. I thought it was fun watching them go over the facts and try to logic their way though the stories they heard to get to the truth. KAM789
I agree to what RMG789 was saying. All of the jurors weren’t even going to try and see what the real solution was about the killing. They were all except one person to just willing to say this boy was guilty. Jimho789
I think that 12 Angry Men was definitely well done and was a good example of what happens in a jury, except that it was all white men when it should be people of any race or sex. Though we aren't told the story at the beginning, you get a good idea about what happened while listening to each of the men speak. We know that the boy was accused of stabbing his father and a lady 'saw' the incident happen. It starts off slow but as the movie picks up it becomes more interesting as the one guy who claimed the boy was not guilty starts to point out why he may not be guilty. When he pulled out the same knife that the boy had you start to believe that the boy may not be guilty because if the juror had the same knife, then several other people could too which led to you thinking that it could've been someone else who stabbed the man. It was interesting to hear what and why each person thought about why the boy was or was not guilty and as the movie went on how their opinions began to change as the facts started to build up. It was a good relation to the term "I'm going to kill you" and how plenty of people say that but don't mean it which could've been what the old man heard and thought it was a serious statement. When the one juror realized that the lady had marks on her nose from her glasses, really made it more believable that is wasn't the boy who killed his father because she couldn't have seen the incident without her glasses on. There were a lot of good facts that were collected as the movie went on and it was interesting to see how one person's opinion changed the rest of the juror’s to agree with him. -MH789
I agree with MH789 that it was interesting seeing the one juror change the minds of all the other jurors. It was interesting seeing how one man didn’t just want to go with the rest and get the trial over with but since he wanted to give more time on to the case he tries and succeeds in convincing the rest to vote not guilty. -CEM789
You made your point very well MH789. I didn't mention the part in my comment about us not being able to hear the beginning story but listening to the men of the jury speak and being able to determine what exactly happened. Every one of the arguments they brought up against the "facts" made me lean towards considering the kid not guilty. Even though, thinking ahead at what the film was going to be about, getting a look at the kid, and knowing the race/ethnicity of him already lead me to think not guilty and that he was going to get thought of in the wrong way. LF789
The plot of this movie is about twelve men that have to convict a young boy. These twelve men are all white and all have their own views on the case; the boy is accused of killing his dad. When the jury voted, eleven jurors voted him guilty and one juror voted not guilty. This sole juror is attempting to plead the young boy case, but the rest of the jurors refuse to listen to him. Juror member #2 talks real facts and says that the old man was downstairs when he heard all of the actions. Juror member #3 thinks that the boy's story was off track and that the boy said he was at the movies but didn't remember anything about the movie. The one juror shouts out saying 'what about the old lady, she saw the whole thing.' but during the whole movie the lone juror that was disagreeing with everybody was actually trying to convince everyone else that the accused boy was guilty. All of the jury members had lots of key points that would hit it on the head that pointed towards the young boy being guilty. Near the end of the movie all of the jurors except the one was starting to feel like this boy might not be guilty. I think this movie was a excellent example of what was talked about in class. I feel the juror selection should of been even and not consist solely of whites. Jon789
I agree with MH789 that it was important for each person to share their opinions as to why they believed the accused boy was guilty before sentencing him to death. It was interesting to see how their opinions began to change as they listened to the man who said the boy was not guilty in the commencement and how more facts began to add up as the movie progressed. Jon789
Thanks to this movie I have a better understanding on the jury. It is almost like being in the jury I honestly wanted to slap those two loud mouths, I mean it brings you in to the movie. This film is exactly what I needed because honestly in class I was hearing terms I have never herd before. From the notes I took in class I concluded that the jury were supported with testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence. Testimonial because there was the old man who said he heard the kid and the lady who said she say the killing. Circumstantial evidence because of the knife they had. That knife was circumstantial to the death of the father. What I really like about the first guy saying the kid is not guilty, is that he never said he was sure that the kid did not commit the crime. He always stated he had reasonable doubt on all of the witnesses. This is a life expression, we sometimes become to numb to what we are saying and just agree with out thinking it out, I mean a kids life was on the line at least think it out and go through every evidence. The good thing was that hung jury was avoided. The two main turn around that avoided the hung jury step was when the loud mouth shouted to the guy he was going to kill him, and when the main guy bought out the same knife. If I was the kid I would use one peremptory challenge to exclude one of the loud mouths and the other challenge to exclude the other loud mouth by giving the cause that one of them was an executer. NR789
I found myself also disliking the loud and rude jurors. One of my favorite scenes with them was when the one juror had baited the main antagonist into saying "I'm going to kill you!", then asking "Now you aren't really going to kill me are you?" just to make a point that the loudmouth juror shouldn't stick to the witness's claim as hard as he was. -EAB789
I agree that it was a life expression because in life we often make decisions too quickly and don't take the time to actually consider things and then we end up making the wrong choices. It goes to show that one person really can make a difference if you just stick to what you believe. -MH789
12 Angry Men really broadened my understanding of how the jury works, how the courts work, and how important the jury is to a trial. At the beginning of the movie we are presented with the trial and then we see the jurors try to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The vote came out to be 11 to 1 against not guilt, and having to have a 20 to nothing vote they had to sit and try to decide on one verdict. So now that one man that voted not guilty has to try and convince not half, not a quarter, but the rest of the jury to vote not guilty. Now looking at the defendants circumstances all odds seem to be stacked against him. This is because there are 2 witnesses against him, his lawyer doesn’t think the case is worth it, evidence points to him, and most of the jury thinks he's guilty. As the movie progresses the odds start to turn as all this material is questioned by the 1 juror and the others he begins to convince. Such as the two witnesses, they begin to see that they are not reliable sources of information. Another thing the one juror points out is that the lawyer didn’t really want to challenge the material presented because he felt the trial wouldn’t gain him reputation or good money. This leads me to the jury being poorly selected because we see a lot of prejudice jurors and jurors that just wanted to get the trial over with. The evidence was also faulty because once some jurors began to challenge it they found it didn’t really point to the defendant. For example, some jurors thought the knife was one that only the defendant could possess because they hadn’t seen one like it but then the juror that voted not guilty in the beginning showed them the exact same knife he had bought for $6 at a store. At the end the one juror that voted not guilty convinces the whole jury to reach a verdict of not guilty. This movie was a great example of how a jury and the court work to reach a verdict on a trial. -CEM789
I really liked the example of the knife that was purchased. The prosecution's claims were diminished when they found that not only was the knife not a one-of-a-kind item, but also that proper switchblade technique would not allow for a downward stab for someone shorter than the victim. I think one of the best aspects of the movie is that it goes from one person being not entirely sure, to everyone have more than a reasonable doubt about the case. -EAB789
Deliberation is the main event when the jury retires after closing arguments. There is one foreman, which is the first juror. In the movie, they started off with a preliminary vote to see where every man stood. I say "man" because there was not female juror. 11 voted guilty, which carried a mandatory death sentence and one voted not guilty. I learned that a vote of not guilty does not necesarily mean the juror beleives the defendant is not guilty of they crime. This could also mean that they juror believes that there is a degree of reasonable doubt that the person on trial may not have commited the crime. Another part of they jury themselves is how impartial they are. As displayed in the movie, there were definitely partial jurors that should not be tolerated. It does not insure a fair trial for the accused, and part of the criminal justice system starts to crumble. EAW789
I really liked this movie because it shows how the jury works. I never thought they go in a room to discuss if the person is guilty or not. When they started to discuss what the boy did, they all said he was guilty but one and they were just going off what the witness said and not really thinking of what happen. Three of them didn't know why they said guilty. They were just agreeing with all the other guys. -SJ789
I agree with SJ789 because in the film three of the guys didn't want to be singled out from the majority of the group and or they had plans later in the day that they wanted to attend.AEK789
I agree with the guy in the movie who said the boy wasn't guilty because he has a good reason why he isn't guilty. He may feel like the boy didn't commit the crime. How did the 11 men know he was guilty with any evidence. The 11 men were confused and not even sure he was guilty. That one guy may understand why he did it because he been through so much in his 18 years of life. In a courtroom its definitely possible if a defendant is wrong about a case. That one guy who didn't vote the boy guilty and could possibly be on the boys side could be right. He's giving reasons why he feel like this 18 year old boy is guilty. I see in the jury if 1 person disagrees and doesn't agrees with guilty then everyone else will be upset because he as a different vision on what happen. I do agree with everyone else that this movie was a good understanding on how they vote and it made me understand a lot better with a film to watch. -SJ789
I loved this movie, it shows how quick some people are to assume guilty without even considering the possibility that there could be reasonable doubt. They also pointed out how the defense attorney was not likely to put up a good case because of the lack of motivation he had. Obviously with this taking place in the 50's before African Americans and women were considered equal to white men there were only white males on the jury. This however, only seemed relevant to one individual's vote. At first, this juror keeps referring to "these kids" or "kids these days". Later on it becomes increasingly obvious that he means minorities as he is saying "These people", "Them", and "You know how these people are!". This is the basis for his staunch rejection of the possibility of reasonable doubt, regardless of the fact that the rest of the jurors began and continued to poke holes in the prosecution's argument. It was nice to see that the jurors turned their backs on the stubborn juror once his prejudices were revealed, like one of the other jurors said "You're supposed to leave your prejudices outside of the trial". One of the main reasons I liked this movie was that the accused was almost killed but because one juror was undecided they completely re-analyzed it and found out things that weren't brought up in court such as the woman's eye sight or the old man's ability to see/hear the accused. They ended up unanimously voting not guilty because they dropped their prejudices and opened their minds to the conclusions they were able to come to from thinking about the case more than the actual attorneys did. The movie was both educational and very entertaining and is thus a great way to remember how the jury process works within the courts. -EAB789
I agree with EAB789 because in the case everyone voted guilty right of the bat because they did not even consider any of the facts. The jurors also seemed like they did not want to be singled out when they voted in the beginning so they all went with the majority of the other votes, in this case it was guilty. Also half way through the film when the votes were 6 to 6 one person just wanted to go see a baseball game so he voted not guilty. AEK789
I think 12 Angry Men showed in good detail how difficult it can be to come to a consensus on a jury. First I don’t think its right for the jury to be completely composed of white males all around the same age with the exception of the one juror who was older than the rest. I liked how even though eleven of the jurors voted guilty there was one who voted not guilty to wait and discuss all the facts because it would not be fair to the kid on trial to convict him fast just so the jurors can get on with their days especially since some of the jurors were voting guilty because of where and the way the kid grew up. I think the way the jurors went about discussing all the evidence and witness statements was good too, because they were about to find inconsistencies with the story that way. Though that process the one juror that voted not guilty was able to sway opinions his way. KAM789
Nice point about the jury being completely filled of middle aged white males. Me, I just assumed it would be like that seeing the era of the film and time frame it took place in. It was a very interesting film to watch and it was even more interesting to see each juror slowly change his mind and lean towards saying not guilty to the conviction even the ones who's minds weren't very open to probable cause. This trial could be like any other trial, for example the recent killing of Adrian Peterson's son, being beaten to death. The man will be tried and accused but they need actual proof and reasonable doubt that it was for sure him. Just to add my opinion on that case, I believe he did it but we won't know until that man actually goes to trial. LF789
12 Angrey men is a great addeptation of what the American Court system looks like on the real inside. i like how it shows how they use alternet juors. In this movie it uses a panel of 12 jurors and 2 alternet jurors. the jury panel is made up of many different people from a arcitect to some one who was raised in the slums of a local city. It all so shows how race is used for and against the deffense in a trial. In this move all the jurors where white when the deffendent was or a differnet color. Aswell as showing how jurors come to vote. SM789
I really enjoyed the film 12 Angry Men. It shows how the jury has to bring out all possible facts to determine the conviction or not. The men all started out voting guilty by just listening to the trail except one, who opened all their eyes to the possibility that the kid was not guilty. I hope that all cases are discussed in this manor because watching this film makes you think how easily it could go the wrong way and convict an innocent person of a crime they did not commit. The one juror who started with being the odd man out was the difference maker and I hope the system chooses the right people to become apart of the jury so that the right/correct decision is made for all cases. LF789
In the video, 12 angry men, there is a court case that consists of a 18 year old boy being convicted for murdering his father, and in this video there are 12 jurors that are placed in a locked room together. In the beginning of the film all but one juror had voted guilty, and in order for the defendant to be considered guilty everyone had to vote guilty or not guilty. So they argued about facts, and how a lot of the information from the man and the women were skewed or made up. In the end of the movie it showed how the defendant was wrongly convicted, and it also showed how people can be persuaded to believe something or someone, especially when everyone wants to vote with the majority of the group so no one is singled out. This video also showed how some people in the court are biased towards someone or something that was personal in their life.-AEK789
Group conformity is when groups influence the behavior of their members by promoting conformity or "fitting in." In 12 Angry Men I believe this played a part in the final verdict. Each man came from a different back ground and appeared to be going through the motions of being on a jury and not really trying to think for themselves. Because of the "drone effect" the prosecutor could easily tell them what to think and how to vote. One man out of twelve had the foresight to actually question the evidence as it was given to see if there was reasonable doubt. Granted this film was set back in I believe the 50's when social norms were somewhat different, but the root problems were there just as they still are today. Prejudice was there for a few of the twelve men and they were open and very vocal about it by using terms like “those people" and "them" in reference to lower income and ethnicity of the boy. They stereo typed the boy and were bias. They also had other agendas mentally that hindered a fair vote as well as it was extremely hot in the deliberating room which made all the men very irritable. The boy on trial was only 18, lived with an abusive father in the slums, and had an all-around rough life. The evidence against him was an old man testifying he heard an argument where the boys’ father punched him multiple times and then the boy said he was going to kill him, an older neighbor lady 60 feet away that said she saw the boy stab his father in the chest, and a unique/rare switch blade knife as the murder weapon. Multiple times they used the term open and shut case, but because one man voted not guilty and got the rest of the men to actually think things finally started to turn around. They started deliberating and talking about the evidence and what they found is that they could poke holes in every part of the prosecution. The man that voted not guilty even went out and bought the very same knife the father was killed with to persuade the rest that maybe there was more to the evidence that needed to be looked at. From there it was only a matter of time. The rest of the jury members started to lose confidence in their original vote of guilty and started to have reasonable doubts that the kid killed his father. Admittedly no one really knows if the boy was truly innocent or truly guilty, but because of how our laws are written if there is any reasonable doubt, that person cannot be found guilty. This really can be positive or negative though. What it boils down to is the same thing that can fix 99 problems in life out of 100….MONEY. If you have the money to get the very best lawyer chances are you can literally get away with murder. Because this boy had little or no money his lawyer sucked, and if it wasn’t for one man having the kahunas to go against the crowd he would have most definitely been executed. He will probably never know how extremely close to the death penalty he truly was. The question I still have is was the boy innocent or guilty. I am undecided.
In the movie the Twelve-Men try to convict the 18 year old kid beyond a reasonable doubt. In the U.S. the verdict must be unanimous. The movie explores many techiniques as the difficulties encountered in the process, among the group of men that have all different personalities adds intensity and conflict to the case. The jury selection is very mixed and diverse between the jurors. Juror #1 is an assistant high school football coach, Juror #2 is unpretentious bank worker, Juror #3 antagonist businessman, Juror #4 Rational, self-assured , analytical only concerned with the facts, Juror #5 grew up in a rough violent Baltimore slum, Juror #6 house painter, tough but respectful, Juror #7 salesman, sportsfan, superficial indifferent to deliberations, Juror #8 architect, the first dissenter and protagonist, Juror #9 wise and observant old man , Juror #10 garage owner, a pushy and loud mouth , Juror #11 European watchmaker, Juror #12 wise cracking indecisive advertising executive. All of them differing in temperment the actors serve as a accurate representation of society. As the movie progesses many themes come into play justice, doubt, mercy, prejudice. The jur was made up of middle- aged white men and that was key they thought to convict the young man of murder. Racism plays a part to with all the jury being white it doesnt work and not fiar to the defendant who is a different color it hsould have been mixed so it would have been fair for both parties this movie showed the perfect examples of structure and watch what a jury must go through to make a decision it has alot of simmilarties in the court view. TMilligan 789
ReplyDeleteI agree to what TMilligan was saying. I also think the juror selection should of been equal instead of just being white. I also think that that racism plays a part in the type of jurors that were selected.
DeleteI agree that this movie did a good job demonstrating the structure of a jury and how it functions. It was crazy to watch as the doubt rose up in each of the jurors as the time went on. At first it does seem like the boy is guilty of killing his father, but when they look at everything that has been said about the case adding personal knowledge and experience they question it and find room for doubt. RMG789
DeleteI agree that race was a big part, but also they kept mentioning that he was "one of them." Meaning he was a boy from some type of lower class area, that may have had more crime than other places. Since they boy was from that particular "bad" area he was "like" those people, in other words a criminal and all people from there were. When in fact a few of the other jurors grew up there and werent accused of murder.' Guilt or innocence cannot be determined based on race, ethnicity, geographics, social status, education, age, gender, etc. EAW789
DeleteI agree to what TMilligan was saying. I also think the juror selection should of been equal instead of just being white. I also think that that racism plays a part in the type of jurors that were selected. Jimoh789
DeleteThis movie is about twelve men that have to convict this young boy with a reasonable doubt these twelve men are all white and all have different views on the case. The boy is accused of killing his dad. When they took the vote eleven jurors voted him guilty and one juror voted not guilty. One juror is really trying to plead the young boy case. but the rest of the eleven jurors aren't trying to hear what he has to say. The second Juror talks real facts that say the old man was downstairs when he heard all of the actions. Juror three thinks that the boys story was off track and that the boy said he was at the movies but didn't remember anything about the movie. The one juror shouts out saying 'what about the old lady, she saw the whole thing.' but threw out the whole movie the one juror that was disagreeing with everybody was really trying to convince everyone that he was guilty. all of the juror had lots of key points that would hit it on the head that the young boy was guilty. Toward the end of the movie all of the jurors except one was really starting to feel like this boy might not be guilty. but I just think this movie was a perfect example of what we talked about in class. I feel the juror selection should of been even and not just all white people. Jimoh789
ReplyDeleteI agree they shouldn't have all been white males, but overall the group was extremely diverse in their individual background. The movie relates well to our class discussions and demonstrates how hard it is to have an impartial jury.I think that it is near impossible to have a jury that is completely impartial. Cases like this one would challenge jurors's core beliefs and make it hard to come to a decision with good conscience. RMG789
DeleteI agree I definitely forgot to mention the race factor. Not all of them should have been white males, there must have been some variety and have different opinions. NR789
DeleteI most definitely agree with everyone that having a jury full of the same demographics is completely unethical. This movie does however show its age. Today as we know, women and men of any race and ethnicity that is 18 and over and of US citizenship can serve as a juror. This brings in brings in they impartiality and they jury of out peers as pointed out by the Constitution. I do believe it is especially important to have the age range to provide for higher and lower ranges of intellectual thought processes, but that is just my opinion. EAW789
Deleteagree it was wrong to have a jury entirely consisting of jurors of the same race but I doubt there was much racial prejudice considering the kid on trial was white as was the victim. Other than race though all the jurors were different in background and I think those differences are what allowed the discussion of the facts from the case to be so effective.KAM789
DeleteI think this movie does a wonderful job of showing how difficult it can be to vote someone guilty or not guilty as part of a jury. The vote here has to be unanimous, and even the one person who votes not guilty causes a lot of stir among the jurors and sparks the debate that we see through out the film. I think it is good that they each put forth their reasons for thinking the man is guilty. They look at the facts from the case, past history, motive, and consider witnesses in attempts to change the man's mind. In the beginning, it seems that the jury is impartial. But as the movie progresses you see the prejudice begin to appear, like the juror making a comment about people from slums. Despite their prejudice, they attempt to look at things impartially. The jurors bring up points involving environment and how it effects a person and their choices, much like we did in class. Then the man who thinks the boy is innocent gives his case. He questions the eye witness account, he questions whether or not the boy actually killed his father with a knife, because he has one identical to it. Originally, eleven of the jurors think he is guilty because of facts, where he came from and the solid eye witness account. But with the second vote adds one more juror to not guilty. These men are not claiming that the man is guilty they are saying that they cannot condemn this man to the chair with unreasonable doubt because of flaws in the case. They talk about the witnesses, both older citizens, and the elevated train. The old man's testimony stated that the sound from the train made it impossible for the man to hear the argument, and supposed killing of the boy's father. All of the things that the jurors are discussing, or rather arguing about, are valid reasons to doubt the case against the boy. Juror 3, I believe, is particularly determined to find this boy guilty, begins to contradict himself particularly with the eyewitness account of the old man; he says that the man is old of course he gets confused, which is the argument of those who believe he is not guilty.This continues to happen for the remainder of the movie. It shows how important reasonable doubt is when deciding the rule to the case. It is funny to see how easily many of the men change their mind after listening to juror 8, the first to claim not guilty. It illustrates how much influence a group has on an individual's opinion and the idea of group think. It is very important that the views of everyone on the jury are heard, because it could change the entire case and keep a potentially innocent man from death. I think that even though there is a lot of prejudice and racism among the men in the jury it is fairy unbiased. I think that sometimes experiences, background and other things can be extremely effective in a jury for either sides of the case, but it can also become a problem.This movie gives you a jury with a mixed group, and even with their minor biases they put those aside to be open minded to all possibilities. Today, a jury would consist of jurors of many more backgrounds, male and female, political values and almost anything differences that you can imagine. One juror makes a good point, he says it is always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and wherever you run into it, it obscures the truth. I watched this movie looking at the psychological aspects, and I learned a lot more now thinking about the court system and the jury. RMG789
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was important for each person to share their opinions as to why they believed he was guilty before sentencing the boy to death. It was interesting to see how their opinions began to change as they listened to the man who said the boy was not guilty in the beginning and how more facts added up as the movie went on. -MH789
DeleteI agree with RMG789 on the fact that the third juror is determined to make the verdict come out as guilty for the boy. I think that one of the reasons he kept fighting for this is because someone close to him like his son maybe, which was probably in the same age group as the boy, did some wrong doing to him which led him to have a prejudice outlook to boys of the same age group.
Delete-CEM789
I thought it was interesting how fast the majority of the jurors were ready to condemn the kid to death just based on his background, the testimony of two people who weren’t actually close to the action, or just to save time. I thought it was fun watching them go over the facts and try to logic their way though the stories they heard to get to the truth. KAM789
DeleteI agree to what RMG789 was saying. All of the jurors weren’t even going to try and see what the real solution was about the killing. They were all except one person to just willing to say this boy was guilty. Jimho789
DeleteI think that 12 Angry Men was definitely well done and was a good example of what happens in a jury, except that it was all white men when it should be people of any race or sex. Though we aren't told the story at the beginning, you get a good idea about what happened while listening to each of the men speak. We know that the boy was accused of stabbing his father and a lady 'saw' the incident happen. It starts off slow but as the movie picks up it becomes more interesting as the one guy who claimed the boy was not guilty starts to point out why he may not be guilty. When he pulled out the same knife that the boy had you start to believe that the boy may not be guilty because if the juror had the same knife, then several other people could too which led to you thinking that it could've been someone else who stabbed the man. It was interesting to hear what and why each person thought about why the boy was or was not guilty and as the movie went on how their opinions began to change as the facts started to build up. It was a good relation to the term "I'm going to kill you" and how plenty of people say that but don't mean it which could've been what the old man heard and thought it was a serious statement. When the one juror realized that the lady had marks on her nose from her glasses, really made it more believable that is wasn't the boy who killed his father because she couldn't have seen the incident without her glasses on. There were a lot of good facts that were collected as the movie went on and it was interesting to see how one person's opinion changed the rest of the juror’s to agree with him. -MH789
ReplyDeleteI agree with MH789 that it was interesting seeing the one juror change the minds of all the other jurors. It was interesting seeing how one man didn’t just want to go with the rest and get the trial over with but since he wanted to give more time on to the case he tries and succeeds in convincing the rest to vote not guilty.
Delete-CEM789
You made your point very well MH789. I didn't mention the part in my comment about us not being able to hear the beginning story but listening to the men of the jury speak and being able to determine what exactly happened. Every one of the arguments they brought up against the "facts" made me lean towards considering the kid not guilty. Even though, thinking ahead at what the film was going to be about, getting a look at the kid, and knowing the race/ethnicity of him already lead me to think not guilty and that he was going to get thought of in the wrong way. LF789
DeleteThe plot of this movie is about twelve men that have to convict a young boy. These twelve men are all white and all have their own views on the case; the boy is accused of killing his dad. When the jury voted, eleven jurors voted him guilty and one juror voted not guilty. This sole juror is attempting to plead the young boy case, but the rest of the jurors refuse to listen to him. Juror member #2 talks real facts and says that the old man was downstairs when he heard all of the actions. Juror member #3 thinks that the boy's story was off track and that the boy said he was at the movies but didn't remember anything about the movie. The one juror shouts out saying 'what about the old lady, she saw the whole thing.' but during the whole movie the lone juror that was disagreeing with everybody was actually trying to convince everyone else that the accused boy was guilty. All of the jury members had lots of key points that would hit it on the head that pointed towards the young boy being guilty. Near the end of the movie all of the jurors except the one was starting to feel like this boy might not be guilty. I think this movie was a excellent example of what was talked about in class. I feel the juror selection should of been even and not consist solely of whites.
ReplyDeleteJon789
I agree with MH789 that it was important for each person to share their opinions as to why they believed the accused boy was guilty before sentencing him to death. It was interesting to see how their opinions began to change as they listened to the man who said the boy was not guilty in the commencement and how more facts began to add up as the movie progressed.
ReplyDeleteJon789
Thanks to this movie I have a better understanding on the jury. It is almost like being in the jury I honestly wanted to slap those two loud mouths, I mean it brings you in to the movie. This film is exactly what I needed because honestly in class I was hearing terms I have never herd before. From the notes I took in class I concluded that the jury were supported with testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence. Testimonial because there was the old man who said he heard the kid and the lady who said she say the killing. Circumstantial evidence because of the knife they had. That knife was circumstantial to the death of the father. What I really like about the first guy saying the kid is not guilty, is that he never said he was sure that the kid did not commit the crime. He always stated he had reasonable doubt on all of the witnesses. This is a life expression, we sometimes become to numb to what we are saying and just agree with out thinking it out, I mean a kids life was on the line at least think it out and go through every evidence. The good thing was that hung jury was avoided. The two main turn around that avoided the hung jury step was when the loud mouth shouted to the guy he was going to kill him, and when the main guy bought out the same knife. If I was the kid I would use one peremptory challenge to exclude one of the loud mouths and the other challenge to exclude the other loud mouth by giving the cause that one of them was an executer. NR789
ReplyDeleteI found myself also disliking the loud and rude jurors. One of my favorite scenes with them was when the one juror had baited the main antagonist into saying "I'm going to kill you!", then asking "Now you aren't really going to kill me are you?" just to make a point that the loudmouth juror shouldn't stick to the witness's claim as hard as he was.
Delete-EAB789
I agree that it was a life expression because in life we often make decisions too quickly and don't take the time to actually consider things and then we end up making the wrong choices. It goes to show that one person really can make a difference if you just stick to what you believe. -MH789
Delete12 Angry Men really broadened my understanding of how the jury works, how the courts work, and how important the jury is to a trial. At the beginning of the movie we are presented with the trial and then we see the jurors try to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The vote came out to be 11 to 1 against not guilt, and having to have a 20 to nothing vote they had to sit and try to decide on one verdict. So now that one man that voted not guilty has to try and convince not half, not a quarter, but the rest of the jury to vote not guilty. Now looking at the defendants circumstances all odds seem to be stacked against him. This is because there are 2 witnesses against him, his lawyer doesn’t think the case is worth it, evidence points to him, and most of the jury thinks he's guilty. As the movie progresses the odds start to turn as all this material is questioned by the 1 juror and the others he begins to convince. Such as the two witnesses, they begin to see that they are not reliable sources of information. Another thing the one juror points out is that the lawyer didn’t really want to challenge the material presented because he felt the trial wouldn’t gain him reputation or good money. This leads me to the jury being poorly selected because we see a lot of prejudice jurors and jurors that just wanted to get the trial over with. The evidence was also faulty because once some jurors began to challenge it they found it didn’t really point to the defendant. For example, some jurors thought the knife was one that only the defendant could possess because they hadn’t seen one like it but then the juror that voted not guilty in the beginning showed them the exact same knife he had bought for $6 at a store. At the end the one juror that voted not guilty convinces the whole jury to reach a verdict of not guilty. This movie was a great example of how a jury and the court work to reach a verdict on a trial.
ReplyDelete-CEM789
I really liked the example of the knife that was purchased. The prosecution's claims were diminished when they found that not only was the knife not a one-of-a-kind item, but also that proper switchblade technique would not allow for a downward stab for someone shorter than the victim. I think one of the best aspects of the movie is that it goes from one person being not entirely sure, to everyone have more than a reasonable doubt about the case.
Delete-EAB789
Deliberation is the main event when the jury retires after closing arguments. There is one foreman, which is the first juror. In the movie, they started off with a preliminary vote to see where every man stood. I say "man" because there was not female juror. 11 voted guilty, which carried a mandatory death sentence and one voted not guilty. I learned that a vote of not guilty does not necesarily mean the juror beleives the defendant is not guilty of they crime. This could also mean that they juror believes that there is a degree of reasonable doubt that the person on trial may not have commited the crime.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of they jury themselves is how impartial they are. As displayed in the movie, there were definitely partial jurors that should not be tolerated. It does not insure a fair trial for the accused, and part of the criminal justice system starts to crumble. EAW789
I really liked this movie because it shows how the jury works. I never thought they go in a room to discuss if the person is guilty or not. When they started to discuss what the boy did, they all said he was guilty but one and they were just going off what the witness said and not really thinking of what happen. Three of them didn't know why they said guilty. They were just agreeing with all the other guys. -SJ789
ReplyDeleteI agree with SJ789 because in the film three of the guys didn't want to be singled out from the majority of the group and or they had plans later in the day that they wanted to attend.AEK789
DeleteI agree with the guy in the movie who said the boy wasn't guilty because he has a good reason why he isn't guilty. He may feel like the boy didn't commit the crime. How did the 11 men know he was guilty with any evidence. The 11 men were confused and not even sure he was guilty. That one guy may understand why he did it because he been through so much in his 18 years of life. In a courtroom its definitely possible if a defendant is wrong about a case. That one guy who didn't vote the boy guilty and could possibly be on the boys side could be right. He's giving reasons why he feel like this 18 year old boy is guilty. I see in the jury if 1 person disagrees and doesn't agrees with guilty then everyone else will be upset because he as a different vision on what happen. I do agree with everyone else that this movie was a good understanding on how they vote and it made me understand a lot better with a film to watch. -SJ789
ReplyDeleteI loved this movie, it shows how quick some people are to assume guilty without even considering the possibility that there could be reasonable doubt. They also pointed out how the defense attorney was not likely to put up a good case because of the lack of motivation he had. Obviously with this taking place in the 50's before African Americans and women were considered equal to white men there were only white males on the jury. This however, only seemed relevant to one individual's vote. At first, this juror keeps referring to "these kids" or "kids these days". Later on it becomes increasingly obvious that he means minorities as he is saying "These people", "Them", and "You know how these people are!". This is the basis for his staunch rejection of the possibility of reasonable doubt, regardless of the fact that the rest of the jurors began and continued to poke holes in the prosecution's argument. It was nice to see that the jurors turned their backs on the stubborn juror once his prejudices were revealed, like one of the other jurors said "You're supposed to leave your prejudices outside of the trial". One of the main reasons I liked this movie was that the accused was almost killed but because one juror was undecided they completely re-analyzed it and found out things that weren't brought up in court such as the woman's eye sight or the old man's ability to see/hear the accused. They ended up unanimously voting not guilty because they dropped their prejudices and opened their minds to the conclusions they were able to come to from thinking about the case more than the actual attorneys did. The movie was both educational and very entertaining and is thus a great way to remember how the jury process works within the courts.
ReplyDelete-EAB789
I agree with EAB789 because in the case everyone voted guilty right of the bat because they did not even consider any of the facts. The jurors also seemed like they did not want to be singled out when they voted in the beginning so they all went with the majority of the other votes, in this case it was guilty. Also half way through the film when the votes were 6 to 6 one person just wanted to go see a baseball game so he voted not guilty. AEK789
DeleteI think 12 Angry Men showed in good detail how difficult it can be to come to a consensus on a jury. First I don’t think its right for the jury to be completely composed of white males all around the same age with the exception of the one juror who was older than the rest. I liked how even though eleven of the jurors voted guilty there was one who voted not guilty to wait and discuss all the facts because it would not be fair to the kid on trial to convict him fast just so the jurors can get on with their days especially since some of the jurors were voting guilty because of where and the way the kid grew up. I think the way the jurors went about discussing all the evidence and witness statements was good too, because they were about to find inconsistencies with the story that way. Though that process the one juror that voted not guilty was able to sway opinions his way. KAM789
ReplyDeleteNice point about the jury being completely filled of middle aged white males. Me, I just assumed it would be like that seeing the era of the film and time frame it took place in. It was a very interesting film to watch and it was even more interesting to see each juror slowly change his mind and lean towards saying not guilty to the conviction even the ones who's minds weren't very open to probable cause. This trial could be like any other trial, for example the recent killing of Adrian Peterson's son, being beaten to death. The man will be tried and accused but they need actual proof and reasonable doubt that it was for sure him. Just to add my opinion on that case, I believe he did it but we won't know until that man actually goes to trial. LF789
Delete12 Angrey men is a great addeptation of what the American Court system looks like on the real inside. i like how it shows how they use alternet juors. In this movie it uses a panel of 12 jurors and 2 alternet jurors. the jury panel is made up of many different people from a arcitect to some one who was raised in the slums of a local city. It all so shows how race is used for and against the deffense in a trial. In this move all the jurors where white when the deffendent was or a differnet color. Aswell as showing how jurors come to vote. SM789
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the film 12 Angry Men. It shows how the jury has to bring out all possible facts to determine the conviction or not. The men all started out voting guilty by just listening to the trail except one, who opened all their eyes to the possibility that the kid was not guilty. I hope that all cases are discussed in this manor because watching this film makes you think how easily it could go the wrong way and convict an innocent person of a crime they did not commit. The one juror who started with being the odd man out was the difference maker and I hope the system chooses the right people to become apart of the jury so that the right/correct decision is made for all cases. LF789
ReplyDeleteIn the video, 12 angry men, there is a court case that consists of a 18 year old boy being convicted for murdering his father, and in this video there are 12 jurors that are placed in a locked room together. In the beginning of the film all but one juror had voted guilty, and in order for the defendant to be considered guilty everyone had to vote guilty or not guilty. So they argued about facts, and how a lot of the information from the man and the women were skewed or made up. In the end of the movie it showed how the defendant was wrongly convicted, and it also showed how people can be persuaded to believe something or someone, especially when everyone wants to vote with the majority of the group so no one is singled out. This video also showed how some people in the court are biased towards someone or something that was personal in their life.-AEK789
ReplyDeleteGroup conformity is when groups influence the behavior of their members by promoting conformity or "fitting in." In 12 Angry Men I believe this played a part in the final verdict. Each man came from a different back ground and appeared to be going through the motions of being on a jury and not really trying to think for themselves. Because of the "drone effect" the prosecutor could easily tell them what to think and how to vote. One man out of twelve had the foresight to actually question the evidence as it was given to see if there was reasonable doubt. Granted this film was set back in I believe the 50's when social norms were somewhat different, but the root problems were there just as they still are today. Prejudice was there for a few of the twelve men and they were open and very vocal about it by using terms like “those people" and "them" in reference to lower income and ethnicity of the boy. They stereo typed the boy and were bias. They also had other agendas mentally that hindered a fair vote as well as it was extremely hot in the deliberating room which made all the men very irritable.
ReplyDeleteThe boy on trial was only 18, lived with an abusive father in the slums, and had an all-around rough life. The evidence against him was an old man testifying he heard an argument where the boys’ father punched him multiple times and then the boy said he was going to kill him, an older neighbor lady 60 feet away that said she saw the boy stab his father in the chest, and a unique/rare switch blade knife as the murder weapon. Multiple times they used the term open and shut case, but because one man voted not guilty and got the rest of the men to actually think things finally started to turn around. They started deliberating and talking about the evidence and what they found is that they could poke holes in every part of the prosecution. The man that voted not guilty even went out and bought the very same knife the father was killed with to persuade the rest that maybe there was more to the evidence that needed to be looked at. From there it was only a matter of time. The rest of the jury members started to lose confidence in their original vote of guilty and started to have reasonable doubts that the kid killed his father.
Admittedly no one really knows if the boy was truly innocent or truly guilty, but because of how our laws are written if there is any reasonable doubt, that person cannot be found guilty. This really can be positive or negative though. What it boils down to is the same thing that can fix 99 problems in life out of 100….MONEY. If you have the money to get the very best lawyer chances are you can literally get away with murder. Because this boy had little or no money his lawyer sucked, and if it wasn’t for one man having the kahunas to go against the crowd he would have most definitely been executed. He will probably never know how extremely close to the death penalty he truly was. The question I still have is was the boy innocent or guilty. I am undecided.
Ethos 246