12 Angry Men Interview Analysis

“NO. 7: So what'd you vote not guilty for? NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” (Lumet 5) Juror #8 is the only one that even tried to find more about the crime and the person, he is the only one that saw him as a kid and made everyone believe him then too. ”

Flaws Throughout The Judicial System Although the movie, “12 Angry Men” was made in the 50’s it is still relevant in the real world today. The movie provides an accurate portrayal of what happens in juries even to this day. This is shown through the skewed view of cases by juries. Juries are influenced by persuasion, personal bias, and prejudice.

Over the years, a plethora of court cases have caused Americans to wonder: is our jury system indeed as wondrous as it is conceived to be? To explain, the jury system is the concept of giving the defendant in a trial the option of either having a bench trial, one where a judge alone reaches a verdict, or a trial by jury, one where a group of twelve ordinary citizens is chosen to reach a verdict on the case. One may wonder why a dozen everyday denizens are being endowed with the absolute power over a possibly life or death decision in the life of a neighbor that is unknown to them, but the framers of the United States Constitution believed that this was the most democratic option in making sure that justice is properly served. Explaining further,

“You want to see this boy die because you personally want it-not because of the facts.” That made the angry juror #3 upset, he tried attacking Mr. Davis, yelling to him he was going to kill him. Mr. Davis said to him, looking directly in his eyes “you really don’t want to kill me, do you?” Asking that question then showed the other jurors in the room, how people can say things out of stress. Such as how the witness claim to see the incident happening in the middle of the night, with a train passing by, and without her glasses

Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

Reginald Rose, the author of Twelve Angry Men, uses characters and their actions to show how the Judicial branch of the government isn’t always fair. The Judicial branch itself may be set up to be fair, but the people in charge of a case may not always put effort into it. The fifth amendment states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, they also do not have to say anything in court, this is set up so the law would have to find him/her guilty. With all this taken in, the jurors decide if the defendant is guilty or not, however if some of the jurors were rushing or biased the “fair” system wouldn’t matter. In the script; eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty without giving much thought.

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

but he wasn’t too excited to go to jury duty. When he showed up to the court, he did have to answer questions from an attorney. The first question they asked him was “Can you listen to a testimony and will you be an impartial juror?”. He said yes. Then they asked him the final question and it was “Are you prejudice?”.

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

As I walk into the room filled with, “A jury of my peers”, I begin to question how fair or how biased we will all be. I am always one to question the system, but I know that I cannot do anything about the system itself, so I have to just go along with it, and follow the crowd. I guess my need to question everything is what I bring to the table of the jury room, although I may not have the courage to voice my opinions. I am sad to say that being on a jury is not a job that suits me well. I am not in any way patient, and I genuinely hate confrontation.

‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.

(3.) Juries work well because of the fact that juries are one of the most democratic aspects of the constitution; they are democracy in action every day of the week, not just once every four or five years. There is no other part of the constitution that is so open to the public, where ordinary people participate in decisions of such immediate importance and wield real power. There are jurors settling the fates of their fellow citizens in crown courts up and down the country every day of the week, determining by their verdicts whether or not defendants are guilty of the most serious crimes of violence and dishonesty such as murder, rape, robbery

He’s slipping through our fingers!” Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual