Although I somewhat enjoyed "12 Angry Men," I dislike movies in black and white, so it wasn't my favorite. The content was good though as was the actual plotline and it brought up a good point. Reasonable Doubt is when there is not enough evidence to prove that someone is guilty. This does not mean that the person is necessarily not guilty, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that they are guilty. Characters 3 and 10 made their decisions based on their prejudice. I would have probably initially voted guilty because at first there seemed to be enough evidence. But after Juror 8, I would have probably changed my vote, because everything he said made sense. in the movie, they all fight like kids, and disagree with each other alot. he says in the movie that the two witnesses that saw the killing are the entire case.
A lot of people think that witness testimony is a sure thing but there are a lot of other things that can go wrong in the process. One thing that the police do to ensure accurate witness statements is to separate the witnesses at the crime scene until they get the statements from them. If allowed to talk, witnesses will share their unique perspective of the incident with the other witnesses which can then distort their version of events. An example, you have two witnesses that observe a drive by shooting. One witness is considerably closer than the other. The closer witness was easily able to see that the car had out of state license plates. The second witness is too far away to tell what state the license plate is but swaps stories with the first witness. The second witness then testifies that the car had out of state plates even though they did not actually observe it. ISP456
I agree. With it being out of state plates its hard to tell exactly what state it is and if that person is out of the state its hard to bring them into the scene. The witnesses could say that they know its out of state plates but are not 100% sure. This movie was so hard for me to watch i dont like black and white movies. But on the side note to properly convict someone you have to have good evidence and them saying they saw out of state plates isnt enough evidence nad it could be false.
I thought this was a pretty good movie especially considering how old it is. I looked it up and 12 Angry Men was made in 1957, almost 60 years old. The 12 jurors are assigned to a murder case. The case has been presented and the movie picks up as the jurors head to the jury room to contemplate their verdict. Initially they try to make it seem like it is an open and shut case but after the jurors are first polled, there was eleven guilty votes and just one not guilty vote. The rest of the movie they spend deliberating and trying to come up with a unanimous decision. They eventually reach a not guilty verdict, quite the turnaround from the beginning. It all ultimately came down to reasonable doubt. While the gentlemen with the not guilty vote agreed that it appeared the defendant was guilty, he still had doubt in his mind about whether the defendant absolutely committed the crime. He spent the rest of the time not trying to get all of the other jurors to change their minds but rather to make them understand reasonable doubt and to give them a reason to come up with some sort of doubt. As the day went on, he slowly was able to get each separate juror to find some sort of doubt on the guiltiness of the defendant. I think the key point is to understand that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didn’t commit the crime, it just means the prosecution did not present enough evidence to prove the guilt without a reasonable doubt. ISP456
I also enjoyed this movie even though it is pretty old. I'm usually not a fan of black and white movies. I was thinking the same thing about how the key thing to get from this movie is how you said that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime, the prosecution just didn't present enough evidence to prove the quilt without reasonable doubt. When it's all said and done I think that's really what we need to take from this movie and understand from a more educational stand point. It was overall an interesting movie and I enjoyed watching it but there were a lot to take from this movie as well. Fruitloop123
I agree with what you said at the end with a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didnt commit the crime, it just means the prosecution did not present enough evidence to prove the guilty without a reasonable doubt. Thats exactly what i took away from this. It wasnt that they knew for certain he didnt kill his father... there was just some unknowns and they couldnt say for certain so their vote had to go not guilty. The only way you can vote guilty is if you are absolutely sure BEYOND a reasonable doubt.USA123
I really thought this was a good movie, especially with everything that we are leaning about in class right now about cases and court rooms. At the beginning of the movie when the jury first votes everyone in the room votes guilty besides one person. The one guy does not necessarily believe 100% that the boy is not guilty but there is doubt in his mind and he just wants to simply discuss it with the other men besides just sending a kid to the electric chair. I thought this was a very humane thing to do considering someones life is at stake. He says a couple times during the movie about how what if it was you we were trying to decide innocent or guilty? Would you want a quick 5 minute decision without discussion? I know I would want it to be discussed and greatly thought about. Even though the boy had all the evidence to prove guilty the jury then goes into much more detail and details that were not discussed during the trial to really get to the bottom of the case. After much discussion the jury finally all votes not guilty. There just was not enough evidence to send someone to the electric chair, and some of the facts or what the witnesses say are facts just don't add up. Even though this movie was made a very long time ago, I was intrigued the whole time and really made me understand what goes on while the jury are deliberating considering I didn't really fully understand what went on during this process. Fruiltloop123
I agree that it was the humane thing for the juror to do, regarding that he decided not guilty because he wasn't sure if the boy committed the crime or not. I felt rather disgusted that some of the men just stated that the felt he was guilty in order to get home in time to watch the baseball game; especially since if he was found guilty, then the 18 y/o boy would be sentenced to death. Even though some of the jurors tried to explain that this boy was dangerous because he grew up in the bad part of town, so did one of the jurors! I’m glad that he tried to stand up and defend the boy that not everyone that lives in the bad part of town are criminals; as stated in class, most of those people are law abiding citizens. BadWolf123
I agree with the 5 minute decision. With the court processes trying to be quick in convictions instead of investigating, this leaves so much room for error. I'm glad there was someone in the jury that was able to care enough to speak up that there may be a flaw in the prosecution's case. rogir123
This movie gave me a better understanding on what exactly one do in a trail and what reasonable boubt is . I've learned from this movie that the jurors are placed in a jury room after the prosecutor and give there facts , on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. I like how juror number eight changed the others opinions on whether or not the boy was guilty of killing his father. Jury eight that said he wasn't guilty had good reasonsable doubt and had other jurors thinking like him. Basically jury eight wanted the others to look at things that wasn't presented in court. I liked when they brought in the diagram of the old man's apartment to back up that the old man maybe telling a lie. I agree with them that the old man couldnt get to his front door in 15 seconds if he couldn't walk to the stand alone. What I didn't like about this movie was that some juors wasn't thinking outside the box they just wanted the boy to be proven guilty and sentenced to death. Pretty much based off only the evidence they were giving in th court room. If jury eight didn't bring up the things that the court didn't bring up, I would've probably said the boy was guilty because of the court facts were on point basically had good reasoning. Secret'A'123
I thought this was a great movie. Based on what we have learned in class about trials and courts I would say that this was a pretty accurate movie too. It showed what really goes on when a jury goes into the jury room and also does a good job of showing what reasonable doubt is. Jurors 3 and 10 surprised me because it seemed that they were basing their guilty decisions on prejudice and when we discussed in class the choosing of a jury, prejudices were something that would more than likely remove you from the jury pool. I liked how juror 8 not only had a reasonable doubt but that he was able to sit and discuss with the others and convince them to go over the evidence in detail thus leading to a not guilty verdict. One reason this may have happened is because of vertical overcharging. If the prosecution had shot a lesser charge things may have gone the other way for the boy. In the end I think that this was a good movie that went over some of the things we have discussed in class and read about, and it did it fairly accurately. vhammer123
I also agree that this was an accurate movie. There seemed to be a lot of prejudice based on the kids' background and everyone else's personal thoughts on people. I know the one juror that was the last one to say not guilty was basing all of his thoughts off his personal life and how his son hasn't talked to him in the past two years. Others were basing it off growing up in the slums. This is unfair because like we learned most of them are law abiding citizens. The kid that was on trial may have had a past but sometimes being hit and abused you tend to live a life of crime. Although he may have lived that life of crime, there is an ageing out process which I think he has hit and he won’t commit crimes anymore. I think his last crime was at 15. He is an adult now and I think he is choosing to do better for himself. So you cannot base your opinion off of his background especially when it is nothing as serious as murder. HRT 123
i agree that maybe the kid did kill his father just because the relationship wasnt at its best. Many kids live with abused parents and in their life have a background og misfortune and trouble that continously surrounds them. Not everyone has a good life. Living with someone or somewhere where theres crimes, robbing, fighting, or drug abuse and lot of chaos leaves a child to think that its ok because not much is being enforced which leads them to take action. The criminal justice system cant always and shouldnt always base their suspects of their background, its really not their fault. and to me they just need some help Hoopz123
I agree but I also do think the boy killed his father. The kid was growing up around bad things but he still new what was right and wrong and but he was so used to the bad things he got caught up in it. He had a bad background and I do agree he could've been trying to change his life but the killing just happened to quick for him not do it and be innocent. Him and his father arguing in the same room he tell his father he going to kill him ten seconds later he dead that's just don't sound like he innocent to me T123
This was actually a decent movie for being old! I thought it showed a great representation of what happens in a court case. I think it was sweet how the one man basically changed everyone else's view on the guilty or not guilty. I think it was inconsiderate of some of them to say guilty just to follow the crowd or just to get out early so they can go to a baseball game. The guy who said not guilty all along created enough reasonable doubt to prove the kid not guilty. I think this was sweet because how many people really look at the details like he did? I doubt many would think too hard about it just because of the kids’ background. They would automatically assume he was guilty. The fact that the group that was going for guilty said he stabbed him overhand is about the most non-educated thing I have heard. Anyone with a brain knows that stabbing overhand would be way too easy to get disarmed and would be awkward. If you actually wanted to do it you would do it lower because it easier, faster, and not awkward. I think it was a good idea to break down every piece of evidence so that other jurors see the picture in individual pieces, instead of the big picture at once. HRT123
I really enjoyed ths movie considering it was something part of what we learned in class and not being a big fan of black and white. this movie gave me and clearer view and a better understanding of what everyone in the court has to do during a trail or murder case. While watching the movie the defense and the prosecution have rested and he jury is filling into the jury room to decide if a young soanish american boy is guilty orinnocent of murdering his father and what begins as a case turns into a little drama amung the jury. At the beginning of he movie noone really thought th boy wasguilty and all the juries and people of the trail talked about it. Looking at the movie i can see that it goes in order as it would in real life. Hoopz123
This movie definitely ties in with the criminal trial chapter we just covered; especially since the move was accurate with the notes in regarding to the role of the jury. I have to say for such an old movie that was filmed in the late ’50s, it was pretty accurate based on my class notes. Most states require a unanimous verdict and had 12 jurors, in which the movie met both of those criteria. Along with the required rights of the jurors, they all seemed to fit the requirements. It was crazy how all the jurors were talking to each other; it was more belittling than anything. In the beginning of the movie, there was only one juror that thought the boy was not guilty, and he was forced to explain so. Toward the end of the movie, there was only one guy that thought he wasn’t guilty and his explanation was only based on the circumstantial evidence. I thought that the boy would be guilty when he admitted to buying such a unique knife, until one of the jurors was able to purchase a similar knife down the block. The woman alleging that she saw the boy through the window of the L train went from direct evidence to circumstantial evidence; since it was proved that she didn’t have her glasses on to really see the boy. She just assumed that she saw the murder take place, along with the elderly man who claimed to see the boy running down the stairs after he “heard” yelling and a body drop. After the jurors sifted through that evidence, they began to have reasonable doubt that the boy committed the crime. BadWolf123
I agree seems like nothing has really changed about the justice system especially when it comes to jurors. Like the man said everyone makes mistakes. It seemed like they were rushing a lot of the time and in a case such as murder it definitely needs to be taking seriously even if it is obvious. If there is no evidence then what proof is there. That boy would have been killed for nothing, except being raised in a bad neighborhood which was not his fault at all. Scorpio 123.
Its amazing for how old this movie is it still shows an accurate dipiction of what we just learned in our criminal trial chapter. I have never actually been on a jury but from what we have learned i thought i was a pretty acurate view on what a jury is actually like, from the deliberation to the verdict. The movie showed a good depiction on how a jury deliberates and how just one persons view can create reasonable doubt and how circumstantial evidence can be percieved in different ways. dabster123
I thought this movie was as educational as it was entertaining. The movie picks up with a murder case that seems cut and dry with the defendant being guilty, however there was one juror that stuck to his guns and decided not guilty. It wasnt that he knew for a fact the kid was innocent, but that he was not sure. He had reasonable doubt. In the very begining the judge told all the jurors that if they had a reasonable doubt that they should vote not guilty. The more this single juror talked and picked evidence apart the more the rest of the jurors started to question their guilty verdict as well. When the "guilty" crowd started saying their reasons for saying guilty then the "not guilty" crowd would take that evidence and go over it and give different explanations for why it may not be credible. These guys began to see flaws in the story and evidence so many of them changed their minds. If there is a doubt in your mind you have to vote not guilty and thats what ultimately swayed these men into a not guilty verdict. One other thing that I found to be interesting and we touched on it in class, was the fact that they were locked together in a blistering hot room with only a couple windows that open and a fan that only starts with the switch. These guys were at their wits end with one another and all they wanted to do was get out of there and go home. I think that was a subtle yet very important aspect of this movie as well. All in all i felt like this was a good video and it was a visual how reasonable doubt is utilized in real life.USA123
I do agree with this persons comment because murder trials may seem cut and dry to a degree but I would other cases like assault or similar cases would be more cut and dry. I think it was good that in the beginning that the one juror stuck to his guns and continued to do so to convince the other guilty answering jurors to switch their answer and yet it so happens that they did. also that yet the movie was educational and entertaining to a certain degree in my opinion. wrestler123
I did enjoy this movie, it gave me a better inside of what happens inside of the room with the jury. My first opinion on the 12 men on jury was kind of doubtful on there ability to come up with a reasonable outcome of the case because all of those men weren't professional lawyers, they were just regular working people and I figure that would be normal to find in a jury. when they were first starting out they were all over the place with the evidence, some was real evidence and other was just plain crap to just hurry up the guilty or non- guilty decision. one particular evidence that was presented frequently was relative evidence based on lay and expert witnesses. None of the witnesses were expert, even though one of the jurors was persistent on saying that the women who was in direct view of the killing. That one juror obviously had a personal dispute with the kid on trial and he was using a lot of labeling to disgrace the kid, saying that "he is from the slums and kids from the slums have a tendency to commit crimes". and some of the other jurors agreed except the one that was from a similar area. like it was stated in other chapters that even thought some one is from a crappy neighborhood, doesn't mean they will commit a crime, even though society will think so. im glad the outcome was what it was because without reasonable doubt or some one with a different opinion, every person that committed a crime would be sentenced to death or to jail without second thought and they could be wrongfully accused. wrestler123
The movie did do a great job of presenting the prejudices and stereotypes people carry with them. Some of the stories told made me wonder how they made it through jury selection but it may also be a reflection of the time it was released. The last juror to change his mind was carrying personal feelings that were directly effecting his decision and had nothing to do with the trial. Check 123
12 Angry Men has always been one of my favorite films, especially since it's from the era of black and white films. I feel like the lack of color leaves each situation, especially in this mystery, a little more intense. This movie is about a young boy who could be put to death for the murder of his father with little evidence. I think this movie is extremely important in this class for multiple reasons. The first reason is that it shows that more critical thinking needs to be done when someone is being convicted. If a person is wrongly accused with little to no hard evidence, then several people are not doing their jobs correctly and are just making the justice process as speedy as possible. I do not agree with this because I think if someone is being paid to perform a certain duty, they need to put their all into this. In this movie, the prosecution made their case almost entirely on "he said, she said" and a knife that was common in the area. Little investigation was done by the police force and left the jurors to deliberate a young boy's innocence. If it weren't for that one juror, a teenage boy would have been put to death. To me, this shows how flawed our justice system can really be. Because of budgets and time, little is done to really find who is committing crimes. If all of the people working in this field were to think as critically as the juror who made the other men actually think, then we would have less people behind bars who are wrongly accused. It is extremely important to get the job done, I agree quickly as with anything else, but also correctly. rogir123
I agree that this movie tied in with the criminal trial chapter / notes that we've reviewed pretty well and accurate. I also thought that the boy was going to be found guilty based off the evidence in court. The two reasons why I thought he was going to be guilty was because first off he couldn't remember what film he had went to see and the other reason was because the knife that was used to kill his father was a one of a kind of knife according to the guy that he had purchased it from. Once jury eight pulled the same one it changed my mind. I thought the movie was GREAT. I actually learned a lot and understand a lot better. Secret 'A'123
First of all I would like to say that I loved that the movie was in black in white their my favorite not that it has anything to do with this but any who I will admit when this first begun it seemed a little dull until I got more into the film and that guy voted not guilty against all the others because to me it just seemed that the rest of them just didnt care and werent taking the case seriously all that they seemed to care about was their plans and going home but the architect seemed to be the only one who cared and took the case seriously i mean after all it was a young man who would be sent to his death if he would of been wrongly convicted so unlike the rest he thought it all through and opened the rest of the jurors eyes to the possibilities and what makes it best is when the older man chimed in and voted not guilty as well because with them both combined they started to solve this puzzle of a case and throw out on the table for the other jurors to see all the things that just seemed off especially the old man because he seemed to be more observant than the rest and before long the other jurors voted not guilty as well all but one he was more so stubborn and wasnt accepting what was laid out infront of him all because he was going through personal problems with his own child who to him was a disappointment so in turn he transferred his anger onto the case all the way till the end when he finally cracked and saw his wrong this movie showed us all as to how important it is to not just rush through and not care and to look more in depth because for some thats the difference between being free and being locked up behind bars or in this case sent to your death TeAma123
Great movie, definitely a classic. The release date for this film is 1957, definitely a time when civil liberties were a hot topic. The jury was all male with little ethnic diversity. There was some diversity in age and backgrounds, income level seemed to play an important part in the jurors characters as well as the plot. The first vote taken was well scripted. Not only the hurry with which this group of people were in, actually an outspoken few, but also the reluctant willingness for about four jurors to vote guilty initially. As the loner presented the facts of the case one by one it was wonderful how a seemingly open and shut case, closely scrutinized, can be full of uncertainties. Recognizing the high likelihood of human error and judgment in both witnesses and possible incompetence in a defense attorney who is most likely a public defender with little real interest in his clients case. Each major fact was taken apart one at a time and found questionable. Eventually facts presented in the trial were put together, specifically the times given for both the old man to move to the door after hearing the fall and the time it took for a noisy train to go by. Overall, the movie gives a sense of trust in our justice system it works but, it makes me uncomfortable. What if the one person hadn't been there to make certain all the facts were interpreted correctly? There were a lot of people that either had their mind made up beforehand or were willing to follow the herd rather than make an opinion of their own. How true did this reflect society in 1957 and how would our society be reflected as a whole now? Check123
I found 12 Angry men on jury interesting. The movie gave me a better idea of how people were found guilty or not guilty back in the day. In this movie the juror were trying to decide if a 18 year old boy stabbed his father to death. They were basically going off of what someone had said, which is not provable evidence. Anyone can say they seen someone killed but that doesn't mean they know what really happened, like the man said people make mistakes which is 100% true. I could tell that majority of the men wanted to find the teenager guilty but one man actually spoke up and said how he felt. He actually changed the mind of one of the other men that thought the teen was guilty. In todays society once you find a weapon you can charge that particular person with murder, in this case they didn't have any finger prints on the boy. There was not a whole lot of evidence or proof that he killed his father. Sure he was a little on the wild side but what teenage boys aren't? If the man would of never spoke up that innocent teen would of been put to death and would of never been able to live a full life. I understand time is important and they didn't want to take a lot of time figuring out something so obvious they thought the teen was guilty and that was that but if they didn't spend the time they did figuring out a verdict the teen would of been killed. This is why in todays society so many men/woman are wrongly accused because the jury rush and as long as everyone votes guilty then there is nothing else to discuss basically. Even today jury's have a hard time coming up with a verdict especially if its murder but it definitely needs to be deeply thought about and everyone needs to review all of the evidence. Scorpio 123.
I enjoyed the movie they had some good details and good arguments. In my opinion I really think the boy killed the father though they got into a argument and the father ticked him off to that point he told him he was going to kill him then he next thing you know he dead ten seconds later. That's just to suspicious. They had some very good points there and they were doing a lot of reasonable doubt. He's a 18 year old boy with a bad background he probably would kill his father. Like on of the jury's said everyone does have their breaking point his could've been then on accident just out of anger. Then he brought the knife the same night it happened then all of a sudden he loose it that's so suspicious, but one of the jury's also made a good point when he said the woman saw him kill the father, how did she know if she wear glasses and didn't have them on that night and was tossing and turning so she had some good points she could've had a blurry vision. This movie a really make you think on it because they definitely had some good points. T123
Although I somewhat enjoyed "12 Angry Men," I dislike movies in black and white, so it wasn't my favorite. The content was good though as was the actual plotline and it brought up a good point. Reasonable Doubt is when there is not enough evidence to prove that someone is guilty. This does not mean that the person is necessarily not guilty, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that they are guilty. Characters 3 and 10 made their decisions based on their prejudice. I would have probably initially voted guilty because at first there seemed to be enough evidence. But after Juror 8, I would have probably changed my vote, because everything he said made sense. in the movie, they all fight like kids, and disagree with each other alot. he says in the movie that the two witnesses that saw the killing are the entire case.
ReplyDeletesnakebite123
A lot of people think that witness testimony is a sure thing but there are a lot of other things that can go wrong in the process. One thing that the police do to ensure accurate witness statements is to separate the witnesses at the crime scene until they get the statements from them. If allowed to talk, witnesses will share their unique perspective of the incident with the other witnesses which can then distort their version of events. An example, you have two witnesses that observe a drive by shooting. One witness is considerably closer than the other. The closer witness was easily able to see that the car had out of state license plates. The second witness is too far away to tell what state the license plate is but swaps stories with the first witness. The second witness then testifies that the car had out of state plates even though they did not actually observe it.
DeleteISP456
I agree. With it being out of state plates its hard to tell exactly what state it is and if that person is out of the state its hard to bring them into the scene. The witnesses could say that they know its out of state plates but are not 100% sure. This movie was so hard for me to watch i dont like black and white movies. But on the side note to properly convict someone you have to have good evidence and them saying they saw out of state plates isnt enough evidence nad it could be false.
DeleteSnakebite123
I thought this was a pretty good movie especially considering how old it is. I looked it up and 12 Angry Men was made in 1957, almost 60 years old. The 12 jurors are assigned to a murder case. The case has been presented and the movie picks up as the jurors head to the jury room to contemplate their verdict. Initially they try to make it seem like it is an open and shut case but after the jurors are first polled, there was eleven guilty votes and just one not guilty vote. The rest of the movie they spend deliberating and trying to come up with a unanimous decision. They eventually reach a not guilty verdict, quite the turnaround from the beginning. It all ultimately came down to reasonable doubt. While the gentlemen with the not guilty vote agreed that it appeared the defendant was guilty, he still had doubt in his mind about whether the defendant absolutely committed the crime. He spent the rest of the time not trying to get all of the other jurors to change their minds but rather to make them understand reasonable doubt and to give them a reason to come up with some sort of doubt. As the day went on, he slowly was able to get each separate juror to find some sort of doubt on the guiltiness of the defendant. I think the key point is to understand that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didn’t commit the crime, it just means the prosecution did not present enough evidence to prove the guilt without a reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteISP456
I also enjoyed this movie even though it is pretty old. I'm usually not a fan of black and white movies. I was thinking the same thing about how the key thing to get from this movie is how you said that a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime, the prosecution just didn't present enough evidence to prove the quilt without reasonable doubt. When it's all said and done I think that's really what we need to take from this movie and understand from a more educational stand point. It was overall an interesting movie and I enjoyed watching it but there were a lot to take from this movie as well.
DeleteFruitloop123
I agree with what you said at the end with a not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant didnt commit the crime, it just means the prosecution did not present enough evidence to prove the guilty without a reasonable doubt. Thats exactly what i took away from this. It wasnt that they knew for certain he didnt kill his father... there was just some unknowns and they couldnt say for certain so their vote had to go not guilty. The only way you can vote guilty is if you are absolutely sure BEYOND a reasonable doubt.USA123
DeleteI really thought this was a good movie, especially with everything that we are leaning about in class right now about cases and court rooms. At the beginning of the movie when the jury first votes everyone in the room votes guilty besides one person. The one guy does not necessarily believe 100% that the boy is not guilty but there is doubt in his mind and he just wants to simply discuss it with the other men besides just sending a kid to the electric chair. I thought this was a very humane thing to do considering someones life is at stake. He says a couple times during the movie about how what if it was you we were trying to decide innocent or guilty? Would you want a quick 5 minute decision without discussion? I know I would want it to be discussed and greatly thought about. Even though the boy had all the evidence to prove guilty the jury then goes into much more detail and details that were not discussed during the trial to really get to the bottom of the case. After much discussion the jury finally all votes not guilty. There just was not enough evidence to send someone to the electric chair, and some of the facts or what the witnesses say are facts just don't add up. Even though this movie was made a very long time ago, I was intrigued the whole time and really made me understand what goes on while the jury are deliberating considering I didn't really fully understand what went on during this process.
ReplyDeleteFruiltloop123
I agree that it was the humane thing for the juror to do, regarding that he decided not guilty because he wasn't sure if the boy committed the crime or not. I felt rather disgusted that some of the men just stated that the felt he was guilty in order to get home in time to watch the baseball game; especially since if he was found guilty, then the 18 y/o boy would be sentenced to death. Even though some of the jurors tried to explain that this boy was dangerous because he grew up in the bad part of town, so did one of the jurors! I’m glad that he tried to stand up and defend the boy that not everyone that lives in the bad part of town are criminals; as stated in class, most of those people are law abiding citizens. BadWolf123
DeleteI agree with the 5 minute decision. With the court processes trying to be quick in convictions instead of investigating, this leaves so much room for error. I'm glad there was someone in the jury that was able to care enough to speak up that there may be a flaw in the prosecution's case.
Deleterogir123
This movie gave me a better understanding on what exactly one do in a trail and what reasonable boubt is . I've learned from this movie that the jurors are placed in a jury room after the prosecutor and give there facts , on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. I like how juror number eight changed the others opinions on whether or not the boy was guilty of killing his father. Jury eight that said he wasn't guilty had good reasonsable doubt and had other jurors thinking like him. Basically jury eight wanted the others to look at things that wasn't presented in court. I liked when they brought in the diagram of the old man's apartment to back up that the old man maybe telling a lie. I agree with them that the old man couldnt get to his front door in 15 seconds if he couldn't walk to the stand alone. What I didn't like about this movie was that some juors wasn't thinking outside the box they just wanted the boy to be proven guilty and sentenced to death. Pretty much based off only the evidence they were giving in th court room. If jury eight didn't bring up the things that the court didn't bring up, I would've probably said the boy was guilty because of the court facts were on point basically had good reasoning. Secret'A'123
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a great movie. Based on what we have learned in class about trials and courts I would say that this was a pretty accurate movie too. It showed what really goes on when a jury goes into the jury room and also does a good job of showing what reasonable doubt is. Jurors 3 and 10 surprised me because it seemed that they were basing their guilty decisions on prejudice and when we discussed in class the choosing of a jury, prejudices were something that would more than likely remove you from the jury pool. I liked how juror 8 not only had a reasonable doubt but that he was able to sit and discuss with the others and convince them to go over the evidence in detail thus leading to a not guilty verdict. One reason this may have happened is because of vertical overcharging. If the prosecution had shot a lesser charge things may have gone the other way for the boy. In the end I think that this was a good movie that went over some of the things we have discussed in class and read about, and it did it fairly accurately. vhammer123
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this was an accurate movie. There seemed to be a lot of prejudice based on the kids' background and everyone else's personal thoughts on people. I know the one juror that was the last one to say not guilty was basing all of his thoughts off his personal life and how his son hasn't talked to him in the past two years. Others were basing it off growing up in the slums. This is unfair because like we learned most of them are law abiding citizens. The kid that was on trial may have had a past but sometimes being hit and abused you tend to live a life of crime. Although he may have lived that life of crime, there is an ageing out process which I think he has hit and he won’t commit crimes anymore. I think his last crime was at 15. He is an adult now and I think he is choosing to do better for himself. So you cannot base your opinion off of his background especially when it is nothing as serious as murder. HRT 123
Deletei agree that maybe the kid did kill his father just because the relationship wasnt at its best. Many kids live with abused parents and in their life have a background og misfortune and trouble that continously surrounds them. Not everyone has a good life. Living with someone or somewhere where theres crimes, robbing, fighting, or drug abuse and lot of chaos leaves a child to think that its ok because not much is being enforced which leads them to take action. The criminal justice system cant always and shouldnt always base their suspects of their background, its really not their fault. and to me they just need some help Hoopz123
DeleteI agree but I also do think the boy killed his father. The kid was growing up around bad things but he still new what was right and wrong and but he was so used to the bad things he got caught up in it. He had a bad background and I do agree he could've been trying to change his life but the killing just happened to quick for him not do it and be innocent. Him and his father arguing in the same room he tell his father he going to kill him ten seconds later he dead that's just don't sound like he innocent to me T123
DeleteThis was actually a decent movie for being old! I thought it showed a great representation of what happens in a court case. I think it was sweet how the one man basically changed everyone else's view on the guilty or not guilty. I think it was inconsiderate of some of them to say guilty just to follow the crowd or just to get out early so they can go to a baseball game. The guy who said not guilty all along created enough reasonable doubt to prove the kid not guilty. I think this was sweet because how many people really look at the details like he did? I doubt many would think too hard about it just because of the kids’ background. They would automatically assume he was guilty. The fact that the group that was going for guilty said he stabbed him overhand is about the most non-educated thing I have heard. Anyone with a brain knows that stabbing overhand would be way too easy to get disarmed and would be awkward. If you actually wanted to do it you would do it lower because it easier, faster, and not awkward. I think it was a good idea to break down every piece of evidence so that other jurors see the picture in individual pieces, instead of the big picture at once. HRT123
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed ths movie considering it was something part of what we learned in class and not being a big fan of black and white. this movie gave me and clearer view and a better understanding of what everyone in the court has to do during a trail or murder case. While watching the movie the defense and the prosecution have rested and he jury is filling into the jury room to decide if a young soanish american boy is guilty orinnocent of murdering his father and what begins as a case turns into a little drama amung the jury. At the beginning of he movie noone really thought th boy wasguilty and all the juries and people of the trail talked about it. Looking at the movie i can see that it goes in order as it would in real life. Hoopz123
ReplyDeleteThis movie definitely ties in with the criminal trial chapter we just covered; especially since the move was accurate with the notes in regarding to the role of the jury. I have to say for such an old movie that was filmed in the late ’50s, it was pretty accurate based on my class notes. Most states require a unanimous verdict and had 12 jurors, in which the movie met both of those criteria. Along with the required rights of the jurors, they all seemed to fit the requirements. It was crazy how all the jurors were talking to each other; it was more belittling than anything. In the beginning of the movie, there was only one juror that thought the boy was not guilty, and he was forced to explain so. Toward the end of the movie, there was only one guy that thought he wasn’t guilty and his explanation was only based on the circumstantial evidence. I thought that the boy would be guilty when he admitted to buying such a unique knife, until one of the jurors was able to purchase a similar knife down the block. The woman alleging that she saw the boy through the window of the L train went from direct evidence to circumstantial evidence; since it was proved that she didn’t have her glasses on to really see the boy. She just assumed that she saw the murder take place, along with the elderly man who claimed to see the boy running down the stairs after he “heard” yelling and a body drop. After the jurors sifted through that evidence, they began to have reasonable doubt that the boy committed the crime. BadWolf123
ReplyDeleteI agree seems like nothing has really changed about the justice system especially when it comes to jurors. Like the man said everyone makes mistakes. It seemed like they were rushing a lot of the time and in a case such as murder it definitely needs to be taking seriously even if it is obvious. If there is no evidence then what proof is there. That boy would have been killed for nothing, except being raised in a bad neighborhood which was not his fault at all. Scorpio 123.
DeleteIts amazing for how old this movie is it still shows an accurate dipiction of what we just learned in our criminal trial chapter. I have never actually been on a jury but from what we have learned i thought i was a pretty acurate view on what a jury is actually like, from the deliberation to the verdict. The movie showed a good depiction on how a jury deliberates and how just one persons view can create reasonable doubt and how circumstantial evidence can be percieved in different ways.
ReplyDeletedabster123
I thought this movie was as educational as it was entertaining. The movie picks up with a murder case that seems cut and dry with the defendant being guilty, however there was one juror that stuck to his guns and decided not guilty. It wasnt that he knew for a fact the kid was innocent, but that he was not sure. He had reasonable doubt. In the very begining the judge told all the jurors that if they had a reasonable doubt that they should vote not guilty. The more this single juror talked and picked evidence apart the more the rest of the jurors started to question their guilty verdict as well. When the "guilty" crowd started saying their reasons for saying guilty then the "not guilty" crowd would take that evidence and go over it and give different explanations for why it may not be credible. These guys began to see flaws in the story and evidence so many of them changed their minds. If there is a doubt in your mind you have to vote not guilty and thats what ultimately swayed these men into a not guilty verdict. One other thing that I found to be interesting and we touched on it in class, was the fact that they were locked together in a blistering hot room with only a couple windows that open and a fan that only starts with the switch. These guys were at their wits end with one another and all they wanted to do was get out of there and go home. I think that was a subtle yet very important aspect of this movie as well. All in all i felt like this was a good video and it was a visual how reasonable doubt is utilized in real life.USA123
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this persons comment because murder trials may seem cut and dry to a degree but I would other cases like assault or similar cases would be more cut and dry. I think it was good that in the beginning that the one juror stuck to his guns and continued to do so to convince the other guilty answering jurors to switch their answer and yet it so happens that they did. also that yet the movie was educational and entertaining to a certain degree in my opinion.
Deletewrestler123
I did enjoy this movie, it gave me a better inside of what happens inside of the room with the jury. My first opinion on the 12 men on jury was kind of doubtful on there ability to come up with a reasonable outcome of the case because all of those men weren't professional lawyers, they were just regular working people and I figure that would be normal to find in a jury. when they were first starting out they were all over the place with the evidence, some was real evidence and other was just plain crap to just hurry up the guilty or non- guilty decision. one particular evidence that was presented frequently was relative evidence based on lay and expert witnesses. None of the witnesses were expert, even though one of the jurors was persistent on saying that the women who was in direct view of the killing. That one juror obviously had a personal dispute with the kid on trial and he was using a lot of labeling to disgrace the kid, saying that "he is from the slums and kids from the slums have a tendency to commit crimes". and some of the other jurors agreed except the one that was from a similar area. like it was stated in other chapters that even thought some one is from a crappy neighborhood, doesn't mean they will commit a crime, even though society will think so. im glad the outcome was what it was because without reasonable doubt or some one with a different opinion, every person that committed a crime would be sentenced to death or to jail without second thought and they could be wrongfully accused.
ReplyDeletewrestler123
The movie did do a great job of presenting the prejudices and stereotypes people carry with them. Some of the stories told made me wonder how they made it through jury selection but it may also be a reflection of the time it was released. The last juror to change his mind was carrying personal feelings that were directly effecting his decision and had nothing to do with the trial. Check 123
Delete12 Angry Men has always been one of my favorite films, especially since it's from the era of black and white films. I feel like the lack of color leaves each situation, especially in this mystery, a little more intense. This movie is about a young boy who could be put to death for the murder of his father with little evidence. I think this movie is extremely important in this class for multiple reasons. The first reason is that it shows that more critical thinking needs to be done when someone is being convicted. If a person is wrongly accused with little to no hard evidence, then several people are not doing their jobs correctly and are just making the justice process as speedy as possible. I do not agree with this because I think if someone is being paid to perform a certain duty, they need to put their all into this. In this movie, the prosecution made their case almost entirely on "he said, she said" and a knife that was common in the area. Little investigation was done by the police force and left the jurors to deliberate a young boy's innocence. If it weren't for that one juror, a teenage boy would have been put to death. To me, this shows how flawed our justice system can really be. Because of budgets and time, little is done to really find who is committing crimes. If all of the people working in this field were to think as critically as the juror who made the other men actually think, then we would have less people behind bars who are wrongly accused. It is extremely important to get the job done, I agree quickly as with anything else, but also correctly.
ReplyDeleterogir123
I agree that this movie tied in with the criminal trial chapter / notes that we've reviewed pretty well and accurate. I also thought that the boy was going to be found guilty based off the evidence in court. The two reasons why I thought he was going to be guilty was because first off he couldn't remember what film he had went to see and the other reason was because the knife that was used to kill his father was a one of a kind of knife according to the guy that he had purchased it from. Once jury eight pulled the same one it changed my mind. I thought the movie was GREAT. I actually learned a lot and understand a lot better. Secret 'A'123
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I would like to say that I loved that the movie was in black in white their my favorite not that it has anything to do with this but any who I will admit when this first begun it seemed a little dull until I got more into the film and that guy voted not guilty against all the others because to me it just seemed that the rest of them just didnt care and werent taking the case seriously all that they seemed to care about was their plans and going home but the architect seemed to be the only one who cared and took the case seriously i mean after all it was a young man who would be sent to his death if he would of been wrongly convicted so unlike the rest he thought it all through and opened the rest of the jurors eyes to the possibilities and what makes it best is when the older man chimed in and voted not guilty as well because with them both combined they started to solve this puzzle of a case and throw out on the table for the other jurors to see all the things that just seemed off especially the old man because he seemed to be more observant than the rest and before long the other jurors voted not guilty as well all but one he was more so stubborn and wasnt accepting what was laid out infront of him all because he was going through personal problems with his own child who to him was a disappointment so in turn he transferred his anger onto the case all the way till the end when he finally cracked and saw his wrong this movie showed us all as to how important it is to not just rush through and not care and to look more in depth because for some thats the difference between being free and being locked up behind bars or in this case sent to your death
ReplyDeleteTeAma123
Great movie, definitely a classic. The release date for this film is 1957, definitely a time when civil liberties were a hot topic. The jury was all male with little ethnic diversity. There was some diversity in age and backgrounds, income level seemed to play an important part in the jurors characters as well as the plot. The first vote taken was well scripted. Not only the hurry with which this group of people were in, actually an outspoken few, but also the reluctant willingness for about four jurors to vote guilty initially. As the loner presented the facts of the case one by one it was wonderful how a seemingly open and shut case, closely scrutinized, can be full of uncertainties. Recognizing the high likelihood of human error and judgment in both witnesses and possible incompetence in a defense attorney who is most likely a public defender with little real interest in his clients case. Each major fact was taken apart one at a time and found questionable. Eventually facts presented in the trial were put together, specifically the times given for both the old man to move to the door after hearing the fall and the time it took for a noisy train to go by. Overall, the movie gives a sense of trust in our justice system it works but, it makes me uncomfortable. What if the one person hadn't been there to make certain all the facts were interpreted correctly? There were a lot of people that either had their mind made up beforehand or were willing to follow the herd rather than make an opinion of their own. How true did this reflect society in 1957 and how would our society be reflected as a whole now? Check123
ReplyDeleteI found 12 Angry men on jury interesting. The movie gave me a better idea of how people were found guilty or not guilty back in the day. In this movie the juror were trying to decide if a 18 year old boy stabbed his father to death. They were basically going off of what someone had said, which is not provable evidence. Anyone can say they seen someone killed but that doesn't mean they know what really happened, like the man said people make mistakes which is 100% true. I could tell that majority of the men wanted to find the teenager guilty but one man actually spoke up and said how he felt. He actually changed the mind of one of the other men that thought the teen was guilty. In todays society once you find a weapon you can charge that particular person with murder, in this case they didn't have any finger prints on the boy. There was not a whole lot of evidence or proof that he killed his father. Sure he was a little on the wild side but what teenage boys aren't? If the man would of never spoke up that innocent teen would of been put to death and would of never been able to live a full life. I understand time is important and they didn't want to take a lot of time figuring out something so obvious they thought the teen was guilty and that was that but if they didn't spend the time they did figuring out a verdict the teen would of been killed. This is why in todays society so many men/woman are wrongly accused because the jury rush and as long as everyone votes guilty then there is nothing else to discuss basically. Even today jury's have a hard time coming up with a verdict especially if its murder but it definitely needs to be deeply thought about and everyone needs to review all of the evidence. Scorpio 123.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the movie they had some good details and good arguments. In my opinion I really think the boy killed the father though they got into a argument and the father ticked him off to that point he told him he was going to kill him then he next thing you know he dead ten seconds later. That's just to suspicious. They had some very good points there and they were doing a lot of reasonable doubt. He's a 18 year old boy with a bad background he probably would kill his father. Like on of the jury's said everyone does have their breaking point his could've been then on accident just out of anger. Then he brought the knife the same night it happened then all of a sudden he loose it that's so suspicious, but one of the jury's also made a good point when he said the woman saw him kill the father, how did she know if she wear glasses and didn't have them on that night and was tossing and turning so she had some good points she could've had a blurry vision. This movie a really make you think on it because they definitely had some good points. T123
ReplyDelete