5. Juror #8 was able to convince the other 11 jurors simply because he presented good, valid arguments. He also knew how to separate the fact and fiction from the given facts.…
On the other hand, juror 10 is a loud mouthed, racist bigot. He scolds people he doesn’t agree with and a low opinion of people living in slum areas. Juror #10 is the character who brings in the most prejudice to the jury room as he has formed his decision from the moment he saw the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any time debating on whether the defendant is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to live in the “slums” and considers people like the defendant to be “trash”. This is established when he states “well take a look at them…you can’t believe a word they say…they act different… they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone. (59) This man is very…
The Jury selection continued for two months. The Judge excluded from consideration potential jurors who violated his strict rules relating to exposure to the media. One juror was excluded for watching cartoons with her children, another for waking up to a clock radio. On October 18, a book about the couple’s relationship hit the bookstores, causing the judge to order a temporary halt to jury selection and to tell potential jurors "to stay out of bookstores." A week later there was another controversy, the prosecutor had publicly complained that potential jurors were "lying" to get on the Simpson jury and that they all ought to be given lie-detector tests. It was refused by the judge. During the VOIR DIRE process, each potential juror took a seat at a conference table. Also seated at the table, were lawyers for both sides and Simpson. Jurors who give answers that indicate that they have prejudged the case can be challenged for cause, others can be excluded using a limited number of peremptory challenges. Attorneys can exercise their peremptory challenges for almost any reason -…
A character who is like me is juror 9 because he’s open minded and fair. Juror 9 is trying to give good evidence about the old men, for example, “The old men has never been recognized his whole life he just wants to be recognized.” (pg. 36) I display this characteristic because I could tell fake from fake and real from real like juror 9 did with the old man when he could tell the old man was lying. A way how not alike is that I don’t really focus on things like he do I just go with my guts or my first instant unlike him he thinks it through and makes sure what he’s saying is…
The first Juror to votes not guilty in the initial vote is the old white man who works as an architect. As when sitting on his office and drawing blueprints for constructing a building, He was very quiet and respectful in the room. He wasn’t convinced that the boy is innocent, but he wants to compare what’s really happened with the testimony’s evidence. At the end of the film he introduces himself to one of the jurors as Davis. He is free of prejudice, and he believes in justice for all. Although in his job he can be sure about the construction material and similar things,…
Juror Three has a strong prejudice for the murder because he has a similar experience with his son. He transfer his anger to the suspect, and keep his prejudice for the murder is guilty. Because Juror Three’s…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
The generalisations established by certain Jurors, makes them oblivious to the facts before them. Characters rely on generalised stereotypes to support their prejudices against those of a lower-socio economic status. The 10th Juror says to other Jurors ‘the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash’ and the 4th Juror states ‘Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Neither the 10th nor the 4th Jurors makes reference to specific details of the defendant’s situation, but…
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based…
The juror’s recognized and valued that they were participating in a key pillar of democracy, a fair and unbiased jury. Juror #11 mentions the importance of this, saying to the jury that “This is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are…ummmm… what is the word… Ah, notified! That we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have not known before.…
His emotional prejudice gets in the way of his critically thinking through the evidence because he has emotional conflict with his own son. He is grouping all teens together because of his altercation with his son, and Juror 3 is just punishing the young man on trial because he cannot come to turns with his own failings as a parent with his child. Towards the end of the play Juror 3 is all alone on the vote count; he “looks around at all of them for a long time. They sit silently, waiting for him to speak, and all of them despise him for his stubbornness. Then, suddenly, his face contorts as if he is about to cry, and he slams his fist down on the table” … (thundering) All right” (30).…
At present (April 2001) only the state of Oregon has a statute permitting doctor-assisted/physician-assisted suicide (DAS/PAS) and then only within very narrowly prescribed circumstances, i.e., for a terminally ill patient. In the November 1998 elections, voters in Michigan defeated a ballot measure to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. Earlier in the last decade, voters in California and Washington state defeated similar ballot measures. A bill similar to Oregon's PAS law died in the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee in February 2000 and the issue before Maine voters as a referendum in the November 2000 election was narrowly defeated by some 51% of those voting [yeas 315,031; nays 332,280]. Such measures although often introduced often die within committee hearings and seldom reach the floor of the full legislative body. An example of such proposed legislation is California AB1592 THE DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT, proposed early in 1999-- presented here in an analysis form. Permissive DAS legislation is overshadowed by measures prohibiting DAS under penalty of law. The Death with Dignity National Center has compiled a summary of current legislative efforts to permit and prohibit doctor assisted suicide.…
Every American that has registered to vote or has a drivers license can at any time be called to serve on a jury. There are mixed feelings about being called for duty. Some Americans see it as a nuisance that will disrupt their lives. Others see it as an opportunity to serve their country. Being called to serve, and actually serving is two different matters. A jury is ultimately selected by the judge, prosecutor and defending attorney. How they are they picked? How are they released? Maybe this paper will answer a few of these questions.…
Juror 5 lived in slums and could relate to the accused but he chose to vote guilty as he felt attacked by the other jurors…