12 Angry Guys: Response Paper The film 12 Angry Guys offers a within look at the inner operations of a jury deliberation as twelve random strangers are called to do their civil task. In a group of diverse people from different backgrounds, Henry Fonda’s character attempts to persuade the rest of his fellow jurors not to quickly convict a distressed young man just because it would be the basic option to all of their issues. The jurors are placed in severe situations in which heat and angst drive them to push for a guilty decision, despite the clear evidence of reasonable doubt presented through the trials truths.
In the end, Henry Fonda’s character gets the other jurors to recognize that all of the proof is circumstantial and they present a not guilty decision to the judge. This film provides a scenario in which it becomes clear that previous bias can influence the verdict that specific jurors hand down. It is challenging for individuals to become objective, even in cases that need them to be. The backgrounds of the different jurors emerged throughout their deliberations. The one juror that took the most convincing was one that was carrying emotional luggage including his own turbulent relationship with his estranged boy.
Another juror clearly looked down on the offender’s impoverished background. One guy could care less about the scenario and just wanted to make a baseball game that night. The jurors had their factors for voting the manner ins which they did, but this proves that everybody has actually predisposition based upon their backgrounds and previous life experiences. The only way that somebody can form an opinion is since they have an ethical compass that guides them as to what they accept to be ideal and incorrect. This is what drives an individual’s beliefs, and this is what affects them the most if they are put on a jury.
The deliberation room also caused an uncomfortable scenario for the jurors. The majority of people fear the day that they will be hired to serve on a jury. It appears like a laborious task that removes from the essential things in their individual lives. The severe heat in the space, plus the eventual rain simply heightened the stress, and might have caused the jurors to argue with one another. Most of the jurors just wished to leave there, but they were advised that there was a person’s life at stake and they might not take that responsibility gently. This is an essential point o keep in mind since most people do not care one method or another whether a person they do not understand goes to prison or not. This is why everybody needs to take their civil tasks seriously. The jurors dealt with the defendant as if he was the one who needed to prove his innocence, rather than the frequently held notion of the prosecution being provided the problem of proof. Whatever in the case was his fault. Since the knife was unusual, he had to have been the one to stab his father. Since the woman said she saw him killing somebody, then she needs to have been telling the reality.
To the jurors who provided an elect guilt, all of the proof was clear and they had no doubt that the guy was guilty. Henry Fonda’s character provides to his peers that the offender did not even have to open his mouth. He must not need to show his innocence, it is indicated in the Constitution. This helps reveal why proof event is so crucial to cases. If proof is gathered properly, then predisposition can reveal through in authorities work. The jurors presumed that the cops were thorough with their investigation, so the defendant must be guilty since the polices would not have apprehended him if he were not.
The bias of the jurors in favor of law enforcement officers persuaded them to choose a conviction while pondering. The jurors also existed with proof that was circumstantial at finest. Henry Fonda’s character attempts to prove that the realities of the case do not add up. Whatever that the prosecution had laid out prior to them was based upon several assumptions. They assumed that the woman across the street might translucent a passing train. They presumed that the old guy might stroll to his front door in 15 seconds.
They assumed that the boy would stab his dad downward in the chest. All of these assumptions would lead anyone to believe that the young man was guilty, but when taken as parts of a whole, the case starts to break down. The lady could not have actually seen the kid through the train from 60 feet away during the night if she used glasses. The old male could not get up from his bed and make it to his door if he was strolling with a limp. The defendant could not have actually stabbed his daddy downward since his impulses with a switchblade would have told him to stab forward, not down.
It is unexpected how improperly the case was thrown together, yet random strangers were so convinced that they were best to wish to convict a relatively distressed boy based upon easy presumptions. Henry Fonda’s character was not trying to show that the young man was innocent. He was trying to prove that there was affordable doubt in the case. In the start of the votes, he firmly insisted that he voted not guilty due to the fact that he thought that the kid deserved better than a five-minute consideration when a life is at stake. It is tough for common people to position themselves in others’ shoes due to the fact that the majority of people do not see themselves as wrongdoers.
Anybody who has a previous history of delinquency is immediately assumed to be a repeat culprit when it pertains to criminal activity. The beauty of the U. S. criminal justice system is the truth that innocence does not need to be proven. Everybody is assumed to be innocent, but this is difficult for jurors to contemplate when they have actually been presented with what they think to be facts by the prosecution. The predisposition of the numerous jurors was apparent throughout the deliberation. Just when the rest of the guys declined to captivate absurdity did one juror give up his prejudice tirade versus individuals from the slums of town.
No matter just how much a jury is supposed to be fair, everyone will have bias in their choices due to the fact that decisions are based on previous experiences of others. The criminal justice system is not ideal, however it tries to be fair to those who can not protect themselves. This movie reveals a favorable point of the trial system. Someone defends the accused and tries to show that his life deserves at least a review. This is why most people would rather have a jury of their peers identifying their fate, instead of a single judge and executioner.