Biases In The Film 'Twelve Angry Men'

Kevin Faucher & Joel Lai
Mr. Gordon
CLU3M1
April 25, 2013

12 Angry Men In the film Twelve Angry Men, all jury members discussed the evidence of a boy's murder trial. It seems as though it should be an easy, unanimous vote for guilty however after hours of analyzing and discussing the evidence it comes down to the most powerful evidence; the eye witnesses. How reliable really were the eye witnesses to the boy's murder? The most convincing testimonies do not always add up as proven by this jury. Factors such as, less than ideal observation, shortness of period of observation, and personal biases all prove that eyewitnesses can be very unreliable The woman says she witnessed the stabbing through the last 2 cars of the el. train
at the time of 12:10. This woman is in her mid forties and wears glasses. Everyone agreed that someone wearing glasses would remove them before bed. This would mean that the woman had less than ideal observation because of the her conditions. The first point was that is was night time so the lighting was not too great and once she saw the stabbing the lights when out immediately. The second point is that the distance from her apartment to his was around 60 feet away and by her not wearing any glasses it would be hard to have a great visual. With these facts, it would be very difficult to see the murder take place at night, through the last two cars of a moving train, without glasses in that very short period of time. The womans personal bias was also a factor showing unreliability in her testimony.
She has known the boy her entire life and knows that the family has always been arguing and the father has been an abusive one. She figured since the father and son has always had problems, it must have been him who had done the stabbing. Another element to the bias was that she was an attention seeker. At she made a tremendous effort to look as young as possible at her court appearance. She wanted her time in the spotlight and by testifying against this boy she could be considered a big part of his conviction, if he were to be proven
guilty. The second eye witness, the old man, was also proven to be very unreliable as evidence against the boy. Based on his testimony there were many factors to disprove what the man said. He said that he heard the boy scream “I'm going to kill you” through his opened window, then hears a body hit the floor. He then says he got out of bed and opened his front door to see the boy running and called 911. First of all, based on the lady's testimony as the murder happened, an el. Train was passing by. If the man's window was opened there is very little possibility of him actually hearing “I'm going to kill you” and even if he was able to make out the words there's no guarantee that it was the boy's voice, then heard a body hit the floor. This makes the witness questionable and not a strong piece of evidence. More factors come into play as time and vision are always a huge component as a witness.
It was known to everyone that this man walked with a limp. The layout of his apartment was also known. The man testified that fifteen seconds after the body dropped he was able to get to the door and see the boy run down the hall. The man's room was situated at the back corner of his apartment so for him to get up and out of bed, leave his room, walk down to the end of the hall unlock the door and see the boy running would be very difficult to accomplish especially given the fact the man had a limp. The jury members estimated it to take three times the amount of time than what the old man said. Also, the hallway was quite dimmed therefore making it difficult to see much. These are also an examples of less than ideal observation and shortness of period of
observation. Many feel eye witnesses are the most convincing form of evidence. However, factors such as less than ideal observation, shortness of period of observation and personal biases have to be examined in order for the eye witness to be completely reliable. Unfortunately it is very hard to find reliable witnesses even when they may seem to be and the verdict may seem obvious. If everyone assumed an eye witness testimony was always on hundred percent then there would certainly be a lot of innocent people in jail, and guilty people free. When it comes down to it, the decision is being made that will affect someones life immensely and all factors must be accounted for in order to for justice to truly prevail.